Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - possession with intent to supply - possession - Class B.

[2013]JRC082

Royal Court

(Samedi)

26 April 2013

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Commissioner, and Jurats Clapham and Blampied.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jason Charles Venton

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

2 counts of:	Being knowingly concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 1 and 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 4 and 5).

Age:  45.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Police officers attended Venton's home address to execute a search warrant.  On being informed of the purpose of their visit he pointed to a wooden box, a kitchen drawer unit and a wardrobe; quantities of cannabis or cannabis resin were found in each location.  Venton was arrested and interviewed.  He admitted possession of the drugs and stated that some were for his own personal use, some intended for collection by a friend of his supplier.  Analysis of text messages received by his mobile telephone indicated a history of small scale supply.  Venton subsequently admitted supplying approximately 1 kilogram of both herbal cannabis and cannabis resin over a period of 22 months.  Not a commercial enterprise and no evidence of financial gain - analysis suggested a rather lax approach to receiving payment.

Details of Mitigation:

Venton was cooperative with Police throughout, he did not attempt to conceal anything and authorised access to all financial information.  Wrote his own Indictment.  In full time manual employment with modest accommodation, no luxury lifestyle or signs of living above his means.  In steady relationship and still close to children from previous marriages.  Excellent employer's references and many supportive letters from friends and family, many of whom attended Court.  Habitual smoker of cannabis but expressed a genuine desire to be cured of the habit. 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous offences in his teens and early twenties, mainly minor motoring.  1997/98 drug offences (including production of cannabis and possession of amphetamine with intent to supply) attracted custodial sentences of up to 12 months.  DIC in 2011 for which he was fined. 

Conclusions:

The Crown adopted a 2 year starting point in relation to Counts 1 and 2.

Count 1:	13 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	13 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1 and 2.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 5:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.

Total: 22 months' imprisonment. 

Confiscation order in the amount of £147 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

After much consideration (1¼ hours) the Court found there were exceptional circumstances which allowed them to depart from the policy dictating an immediate custodial sentence:- wrote own indictment; nothing for 15 years save DIC; job still available; good references and employer's support; not a sophisticated dealer; modest lifestyle; genuine desire to break addiction; strong support of family; delay, notwithstanding immediate admissions - all of which only tipped the balance.

Count 1:	140 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 10 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	140 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 10 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	100 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 8 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1 and 2.
Count 4:	50 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.
Count 5:	40 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.

Total: 240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment, together with an 18 month Probation Order and a 12 month Drug Abstinence Order, with random testing.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £147 made.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for five offences under the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  The first two counts involve the defendant being knowingly concerned in the supplying of a total of 1 kilogram of cannabis and 1 kilogram of cannabis resin between October 2010 and 1^st August, 2012.  The defendant wrote his own Indictment in this respect.  Counts 3-5 involve the possession of 276.4 grams of cannabis with intent to supply, and possession of a smaller quantity of cannabis and cannabis resin for the defendant's personal use. 

2.        The defendant is a habitual smoker of cannabis and has been so for the best part of 30 years.  In the opinion of the Alcohol and Drugs Service his offending is related to his drug addiction rather than for financial gain and the supply, in their view, was to a small group of his close friends.  Examination of his bank account has shown no suspicious transactions or unexplained income, no unusual sums of cash were found at his home, and the evidence is of a modest lifestyle.  The defendant has a record of previous convictions but only one conviction for a driving offence in the last 15 years.  He is assessed at a moderate risk of reoffending but not being at risk of harm to the public.  The Crown see no exceptional reasons to depart from the Court's custodial policy in relation to offences of drug trafficking and have moved for sentences totalling 22 months.

3.        In terms of mitigation, the defendant was very cooperative with the police.  When the police attended at his home he immediately pointed to where the drugs could be found and made an immediate admission of having supplied others.  As indicated before, he wrote his own Indictment in relation to the more serious offences under Counts 1 and 2, and this entitles him to credit in addition to his guilty plea and cooperation following AG-v-Bouhaire [2004] JRC 004.  He has expressed remorse for his offences, which we accept, and has provided us with very positive references. 

4.        Counts 1 and 2 are offences sui generis which do not come under the Campbell guidelines and, although the defendant has agreed with the Crown that 2 kilos was the overall cumulative quantity involved, he never held that amount at any time.  But even outwith the Campbell guidelines the policy of the Court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for offences of drug trafficking, unless there are exceptional circumstances. 

5.        After very careful consideration, which can be seen by the amount of time that we have spent deliberating on the sentence, we have decided in your case to make an exception and to accept the recommendation of the Probation Department that you serve a community based sentence and this for the following reasons:-

(i)        As previously said, you wrote your own Indictment for Counts 1 and 2, the most serious offences, and in our view any defendant who cooperates with the authorities to this extent should be rewarded. 

(ii)       Apart from the one motoring offence the defendant has not offended for 15 years.  Furthermore, he has a full time job which will remain open to him and which he will not lose if he receives a community sentence.  He has a very good work record, and indeed we have seen excellent references referring to his reliability and hard work.

(iii)      In our view the defendant is not a sophisticated dealer; we accept that he supplied to a small group of friends; there is no evidence of his having profited from that supply, indeed the evidence is of the defendant leading a modest lifestyle.

(iv)      The root cause of his offending is his drug addiction, which we are satisfied he has a genuine desire and wish to address and have treated with the help of the Alcohol and Drug Service, and they, indeed, have made a recommendation that he should be so treated.

(v)       He has the strong support of his family, which in our view is very important, many of whom are in Court today.

(vi)      There has been an unfortunate delay in the prosecution of his case, notwithstanding his immediate admissions. 

6.        We have to say that it has been a very close call.  And these factors which we have outlined, together with other factors which appear to us from the papers that we have seen, have only just tipped the balance in favour of a Community Service Order combined with Probation and a Treatment Order.  As the Probation Department say in their report this will be tough challenge for you.  Community Service is not a soft option and you must understand that if you breach any of the terms of the orders that we are about to make, then you will almost certainly be brought back and will be put into custody to serve your sentence. 

7.        In relation to each of the five counts there will be an 18 month Probation Order subject to the usual conditions but, in addition, you will undertake treatment with the Alcohol and Drug Service for 12 months.  During that period you will remain abstinent of illegal drugs and you will be subject to random testing.  You will comply with the directions of the Alcohol and Drug Service and you will carry out any other programmes that the Probation Department may specify. 

8.        In terms of each of the counts you are therefore sentenced as follows, in addition to probation:- under Count 1; 140 hours' Community Service, which is the equivalent of 10 months' imprisonment, Count 2; 140 hours' Community Service, which is the equivalent of 10 months' imprisonment, Count 3; 100 hours' Community Service, which is the equivalent of 8 months' imprisonment, Count 4; 50 hours' Community Service, which is the equivalent of 3 months' imprisonment, Count 5; 40 hours' Community Service, which is the equivalent of 1 week's imprisonment.  Counts 1 and 2 will run concurrently with each other and Counts 3, 4 and 5 will run concurrently with each other, but consecutive to Counts 1 and 2, which gives rise to a total sentence of Community Service of 240 hours, which is the equivalent to a total imprisonment of 18 months.

9.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey.

AG-v-Bouhaire [2004] JRC 004.

Campbell, Molloy & Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Antunes & Ors [2003] JLR 144.

AG-v-Phillips [2013] JRC 036A.