Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Lane [2015] JRC 026 (06 February 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2015/2015_026.html
Cite as: [2015] JRC 026, [2015] JRC 26
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Milner |
The Attorney General
-v-
Alexander Andrew Lane
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of utensils for the purpose of committing an offence, contrary to Article 10 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Malicious damage (Count 3). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 4). |
Age: 23.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The police found 21 cannabis plants (Count 1) and a personal quantity of cannabis resin (Count 4) in a secluded flat that Lane had chosen for the purpose. He had installed hydroponic and other equipment that he had ordered on-line (Count 2), made a hole in an internal wall for a ventilation duct and caused extensive water damage (Count 3). Expert evidence was that the plants had not been well tended and each crop would have yielded a quantity towards the bottom of a range between 588 and 1764 grams.
Details of Mitigation:
Full co-operation and frank admission that he intended to sell up to half of the crop. No previous convictions and a good employment record.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
15 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
1 week's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 15 months' imprisonment.
Compensation order sought in the sum of £2,382.54 and 2 years in which to pay from today's date or 6 months' imprisonment in default.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and utensils sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
210 hours' Community Service Order. |
|
Count 2: |
180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
50 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
40 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
Total: 210 hours' Community Service Order.
Compensation Order made in the sum if £3,000 to be paid within 30 months or 6 months' imprisonment in default.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and utensils ordered.
D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which includes four counts - one relates to the production of cannabis in your home, Count 2 relates to the possession of utensils for the purposes of cultivating cannabis plants, Count 3 to malicious damage caused to your rented accommodation and Count 4 to the personal possession of cannabis resin. Of these the most serious of the offences is the production of cannabis which, as you will have heard, carries a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, which shows the extent to which the legislature considers this to be a serious offence.
2. The Court notes that you have pleaded guilty at an early stage and also notes that you have no previous convictions. The amount of cannabis which was involved in this case was some 600 grams and therefore the amount falls below the Campbell guidelines (Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136) and we consider that we are able therefore to look at a non-custodial sentence which is what we are going to do.
3. We are impressed with the references which you have put before us and we think that you are probably somebody who has learnt his lesson from these proceedings. But you will have seen the seriousness with which the prosecution is taken and you will have had a chance to reflect carefully on the mistakes that you have made in your life and how you need to put them right and the Court is pleased to note that you appear to have taken that on board so far.
4. Nonetheless, as I said, the production of cannabis is a serious offence. We think the Crown was right in the measuring of that offence at 15 months' imprisonment but instead of imposing a custodial sentence we are going to impose the non-custodial equivalent so that you, in effect, serve your sentence in the community. You are therefore sentenced to 210 hours' Community Service in relation to Count 1, the alternative would have been 15 months' imprisonment. On Count 2; 180 hours' Community Service, the alternative would have been 12 months' imprisonment. On Count 3; 50 hours' Community Service, the alternative would have been 1 month's imprisonment. On Count 4; 40 hours' Community Service, the alternative would have been 1 week's imprisonment. They are all to be served concurrently, that means you serve a total of 210 hours' Community Service.
5. I must warn you that, if for any reason you do not perform the community service as directed by the community service manager, you are liable to be brought back to Court and you can be sentenced again for these offences and the Court, at that stage, would be inevitably looking at a custodial sentence.
6. I now turn to the question of compensation. You have caused a good deal of damage to your landlady, which you recognise; clearly that is so from your letter. The Crown has moved for a Compensation Order which does not include the landlady's loss of rent and it seems to us to be clear that she has lost some rent as well for the time when the flat had to be repaired. So we are proposing to increase the Compensation Order, not to reflect her entire loss but to recognise that she has suffered some additional loss over and above that which the Crown has identified and indeed, in her statement she says that she has lost rent as well. So we are going to order you to pay her compensation of £3,000 and you must pay it over a period of 2½ years. That allows you to pay at a £100 per month. If you do not pay the Compensation Order of £3,000 over the period of 2½ years which we have allowed, there will be a default prison sentence of 6 months' imprisonment. And so that will come into effect if you do not pay the money back to her. Now there is provision in the compensation legislation for the Court to vary this order so the onus lies on you, if you find that your financial circumstances change and that you cannot pay it, then it is down to you to make sure you raise that and you come back to Court and explain why and the Court can then reconsider the matter further but at the moment the view is that you ought to be able to pay that sum of money and that you should pay it. And that is the order that we make.
7. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and utensils.
Authorities
Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.
AG v Rodrigues [2014] JRC 075.