Jersey Unreported Judgments

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

[2014]JRC073

Royal Court

(Samedi)

21 March 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Jamie Connor Koradi

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

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Koradi was in Chambers Public House with a group of friends; security staff thought his behaviour suspicious and asked him to accompany them to the exit, where they informed Police they suspected drug activity.  When advised he was to be searched Koradi volunteered that he had a bag of ecstasy tablets in a pocket and some cannabis at his home address.  Koradi was found to be in possession of 45 tablets containing on average 135mgs MDMA and at his home 1.68 grams of cannabis were found.  On interview stated he had paid for 4 tablets, had been given the bag so he could take his 4, then pass on to someone else; there was nothing to suggest to the contrary.  Messages on Koradi's mobile phone suggested previous involvement in the supply of cannabis; admitted 'social supply' of approximately 240 grams of cannabis over a period of 3-4 months, the proceeds of which covered just a part of his own expenditure on the drug.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; cooperation; youth - only 18 at time of offending; 10 month delay; ceased use of drugs and distanced himself from old acquaintances; excellent references and supportive letters from family, friends and employer who continued to support him in his training as an apprentice plumber; positive Social Enquiry Report.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Following Bonnar the Crown took a starting point of 7 years' youth detention, however in view of the substantial mitigation available, including unacceptable delay, invited the Court to treat the case as exceptional and depart from the normal policy of imposing an immediate custodial sentence.

Total: 312 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 24 months' youth detention, and a 12 month Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £101.40 sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Defence counsel had submitted a starting point of 6 years should be taken and a sentence of 240 hours' community service imposed.  The Court stated this would have been appropriate if there was only Count 1 to be dealt with but in view of Count 4 the Crown's conclusions were correct.  The Bailiff commented that reference to 'writing one's own indictment' should be reserved for instances where the investigating authority had no evidence whatsoever; with regard to Count 4 the Crown stated the Defendant "effectively 'wrote his own indictment'" however there was evidence obtained from his mobile phone which, although insufficient on its own, did not make it appropriate to use the term with regard to the defendant providing quantity, time period and any financial details on which to base a conviction.

Conclusions granted.

Ms. E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        When you were still 18 you were found in possession of 45 ecstasy tablets at Chambers.  You are to be sentenced on the basis that these were given to you shortly before you were arrested in order to look after them, although you had agreed to buy 4 of them for your own use.  The Crown says you were in effect a temporary custodian.  However, you also admit to having sold about 240g of cannabis over a period of about 4 months immediately before then.  You sold the cannabis to your friends to help defray the cost of your own cannabis use.

2.        Normally such offences lead to a sentence of youth detention, but exceptionally in this case the Crown has moved for a non-custodial sentence.  They have done that because they say that the circumstances of the offence, combined with the exceptional mitigation, makes this an exceptional case. 

3.        There certainly is strong mitigation; you have pleaded guilty and co-operated fully.  It is said that on Count 4 you wrote your own Indictment.  We do not agree with that.  Writing your own Indictment only applies where there is absolutely no evidence against a person and the only reason the Crown learn about an offence is because the person tells them.  That was not the case here.  The police had found suspicious material on your telephone so they had a suspicion, you merely confirmed it by being very co-operative.  So there was a high level of co-operation, but it was not writing your own Indictment.  You were 18 at the time and you have no previous convictions.  That is very important and stands you in good stead.  More than that, you have received excellent references from your family, from friends and from your employer.  Your family and your employer are very supportive of you and indeed you have had regular employment with one employer for a long time; so you have a good work record, that again differentiates you from so many who come before us.  Equally importantly, the evidence before us suggests that you have abstained from your drug use since this event.  That is really important because if you carry on using drugs and mixing in drug circles, the chances are that you will fall into criminal behaviour again; so we hope very much that you mean what you say and that you will continue to be abstinent from drugs.

4.        Another factor pointing in your favour is the delay in the case, which the Crown have been straight-forward about.  It was 4 months between your arrest and your charge and it is clear that for two months, the file simply sat in the police station.  That is unacceptable and we do take it into account in reaching the sentence.  And of course there is Article 4 of Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994, which says that we must only impose youth detention on somebody of your age if there really is no alternative. 

5.        Advocate Pearmain on your behalf says the starting point of 7 years' was too high.  If the ecstasy offence had stood alone we would agree with her, because that was a one-off and your involvement was minimal.  However, it has to be combined with the fact that you had been dealing in cannabis, albeit on a very small scale, for about 4 months.  Put those two together and we think the 7 year starting point was correct.  We also therefore think that the eventual conclusion of the Crown, which is a substantial deduction down to 2 years' youth detention, is correct.

6.        For the reasons which the Crown has stated, and which we have listed, we are willing in this case to impose community service as an alternative to youth detention and to impose a probation order to assist you in keeping out of trouble in future.  So stand up. 

7.        On Count 1 the sentence is community service of 312 hours, and that is the equivalent of a 2 year youth detention sentence, and you will also will be placed on probation for 12 months, Count 3 there will be no penalty, and on Count 4 120 hours' community service and a 12 month probation order, concurrent.  That is 312 hours' community service in total.

8.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

9.        You should not think that this is going to be easy.  This is going to take you quite a while to fulfil; your weekends will be taken up repaying what you have done wrong.  I must warn you that you have been given a chance, we are very hopeful that we will never see you before the Court again.  We hope you have learned a lesson from what has happened, but if you were not to carry out the community service conscientiously or if you were not to turn up for your meetings with the probation officer or not do what he or she says, let alone re-offend, then you will be brought back here and you will be re-sentenced.  And of course at that stage the likely outcome would be a sentence of youth detention.  So it all lies in your hands.  If you carry out the community sentence and you behave well on probation then you will not be back here.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-Ferreira 2002/238.

AG-v-Romano [2009] JRC 072.

AG-v-Fry [2009] JRC 115.

AG-v-Richards [2011] JRC 170.

AG-v-Channing [2004] JRC 188.