Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - production - possession of utensils - possession - supplying - Class B.

[2014]JRC075

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 March 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Daniel Rodrigues

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

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

A warrant was executed at the defendant's St Saviour home, which he shares with his wife and father.  In his bedroom cupboard they found a hydroponic cultivation system with eight mature cannabis plants growing within (Count 1).  Hydroponics is a method of growing plants in water without soil, by diluting the necessary mineral nutrients into the water.  Almost any plant may be grown in this way.

The system used lights, fans, an extraction system and other equipment to maximise the growth of the plants (Count 2).  Digital scales were found.  Despite the apparent complexity of the equipment, it cost relatively little to put together, and instructions are readily available on the Internet.

Quantities of dried herbal cannabis were also recovered from several locations within the flat, the total weight being 82.78g (Count 3).  The defendant was interviewed on the day of arrest and made full and frank admissions.  He admitted to being a long-term user of the drug.  He estimated his use of cannabis to be 3-4 grams per week at a cost of between £50 and £60.  He explained that he needed to save money and decided to do so by growing his own cannabis, so that after the initial financial outlay he would be self-sufficient in the drug.

His mobile phone was forensically examined and revealed a number of text messages which referred to drugs.  It is accepted that these were enquiries between a small group of friends who were regular cannabis users.  There were also references to the plants he was growing and requests for 'leaves', indicating that some of his friends were aware of the cultivation.  The defendant admitted that one of his acquaintances had been to his home and smoked some of the dried leaves (Count 4).

The potential yield from the eight plants is estimated to be between 224g and 672g, with an estimated value of £2,240 to £13,440.  On the minimum yield projected by the drug expert, this single crop would have given him enough cannabis for a year, assuming all plants survived to maturity.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; good character; good working record; co-operative in interview and support of family.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total:  15 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of growing equipment sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total 180 hours' community service order, equivalent to12 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Forfeiture and destruction of growing equipment ordered.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq. Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. A. Corbel for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMISSIONER:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for the production of cannabis in his home.  He started smoking cannabis at the age of 15 or 16 and it developed over years into habitual use, both as a relaxant and to aid sleep.  He has informed the Probation Department that his primary motivation for cultivating the plants was for his personal use as he had become frustrated with the inconsistent cost of the drug from street dealers and the difficulty in sourcing the drug when local supply was short.

2.        The maximum yield from the eight plants involved, that is from both the buds and the dried leaves, was 762g and with a potential value of between £3,070-15,100.  The Crown accept that this was not a commercial operation, but inevitably there would have been social supply to a small group of the defendant's friends, who also use the drug.

3.        The production of cannabis is a serious offence, requiring a quite deliberate and continuing intention to break the law.  Recent case law indicates a sentencing range of between 15 months' and 2 years, where a sophisticated or large scale cultivation was underway.  The Crown in this case seek a total sentence of 15 months.

4.        The defendant has very substantial mitigation available to him.  He has no previous convictions and is therefore a man of good character.  He has been assessed at being at a low risk of re-offending.  He was very co-operative with the police, making frank and useful admissions in his interview and of course he has pleaded guilty.  He has always been in regular employment and he is supported by both his wife and his father.  He has produced for us an impressive number of references which we have taken into account.

5.        It is now nearly a year from the date that the defendant was arrested and made full and frank admissions.  The Crown have no explanation for this delay, certainly for the delay between April and October last year, a delay which seems to us to be unacceptable. 

6.        The defendant to his credit has maintained his employment throughout this period, has quit smoking cannabis and obtained an apprenticeship in addition to his employment.  In our view this is a case where community service as a direct equivalent to a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate.  Community service is not of course a soft option, eating substantially as it does into the free time of the person concerned.

7.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 180 hours' community service, that is the equivalent of 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 150 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, Count 3; 40 hours' community service, concurrent, that is the equivalent of 1 month's imprisonment, finally on Count 4 to 150 hours' of community service, which is equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment.  All of those to run concurrently so that it makes a total of 180 hours' community service, which is the equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment.

8.        We do wish to say to you that you have come very close to being imprisoned.  This must serve as a real warning to you that if you do this again you will most certainly will be imprisoned and of course you must comply strictly with the community service orders.

9.        Finally we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the growing equipment.

Authorities

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

AG-v-Read [2012] JRC 004.

AG-v-Williamson [2011] JRC 232.

AG-v-Mills [2009] JRC 235.

AG-v-Bisson [2009] JRC 151.

AG-v-Louis [2008] JRC 032.