Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - Class A - possession with intent to supply - possession - motoring - excessive speed.

[2015]JRC039

Royal Court

(Samedi)

20 February 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Oliver Edward Davies

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

Age:  42.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Davies was stopped by police officers as he drove into the rear car park of the Union Inn.  When asked if he had anything illegal in the car, he indicated to the centre console where two 100 gram bars of cannabis resin were found.  A search of his clothing revealed 5·28 grams of cannabis resin and 304 milligrams of methylethcathinone.  A search of his home address revealed a further 13·63 grams of resin and a small quantity of herbal cannabis in the kitchen, four 100 gram bars of cannabis resin stashed in a cupboard and £3,610 in cash in a chest of drawers. 

During interview Davies, who worked as a roofer, claimed that all of the drugs were for his personal use and that the cash was from private work he had done which he kept at home as he 'liked to buy things on a whim'.  He had purchased a Caterham 7 sports car, two Lambretta scooters and a share in a sports boat in recent months.  He denied having profited from selling drugs.  The six 100 gram bars seized had a street value between £5,850 and £14,750.  A saisie was granted distraining on bank accounts and assets. 

On Indictment Davies entered not guilty pleas to the supply counts.  However, shortly before trial, he tendered a 'basis of plea' with regard to the supply counts, which was accepted by the Crown.  Davies admitted that three of the bars at his home address would have been for supply, with one kept for his personal use.  He further stated that the two bars in his vehicle were for return to his supplier 'as they were underweight'. 

An Attorney General's Statement declared Davies' benefit from drug trafficking at £20,428:93. 

The drugs offences had caused a speeding offence committed beforehand to be committed up for disposal. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas on a basis acceptable to the Crown but only after trial dates had been set.  Excellent record of employment - 21 years with same employer, worked his way up to foreman.  Separated from long-term partner but providing her with some support for their son and a child of the family.  Now in relationship with a new partner who remained supportive. 

Previous Convictions:

Several previous convictions, mainly motoring or drink-related but only one previous drug offence, possession of cannabis more than 20 years ago, no convictions in last ten years. 

Conclusions:

Total: 12 months' imprisonment plus £100 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £20,428.93.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Although Davies was sentenced on his basis of plea, the Court could not agree with the Defence submission that a non-custodial sentence would be adequate.  The Court noted that Davies had been supplying cannabis for some time prior to his arrest but had given up using the drug since arrest and had no recent drug convictions.  The Court adopted the Crown's starting point of 18 months' imprisonment but in view of the mitigation available to Davies felt able to reduce the Crown's conclusions slightly. 

Total: 9 months' imprisonment plus £100 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.

14 days given in which to pay fine.

Confiscation Order made in the sum of £20,428.93.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

C. M. M. Yates, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. G. Nicholls for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        You are to be sentenced on the version of facts which the Crown has accepted; that is that you purchased four 100gram bars of cannabis, two were underweight, and your supplier gave you two further bars, provided you return the underweight ones.  But you were arrested before you could do that so, in fact you were in possession of six bars.  You have pleaded guilty on the basis that one was for your own use, two were to be returned to your supplier and three were to have been sold to friends, no doubt to help fund your own cannabis habit and also to make a small profit.  As you have admitted, this is a practice you have been carrying on for some time.  So the total amount involved in the five bars which you were going to supply is 500 grams, of which 300 were to others and 200 were back to the supplier.  This is below the Campbell starting point (Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136) of 2 years for one kilo and we agree with the Crown's suggested starting point of 18 months, having regard to the nature and level of your involvement. 

2.        In mitigation Advocate Nicholls has urged a number of matters.  He has referred to your guilty plea, although it was late and therefore you cannot have a full one-third.  He has referred to your good work record and we certainly take considerable note of that; it stands you in very good stead, 23 years with the same firm and they clearly think highly of you.  He has referred to the fact you do have a previous record but apart from motoring there has been nothing since 2000 and you seem to have put that trouble behind you, for which we commend you.  Most significantly, he has referred to that fact that you have said that you have given up cannabis since this arrest, having previously had a considerable cannabis habit.  We hope very much that is the case because if you can put your drug habit behind you the future looks bright.  He has also referred us to the effect that a prison sentence would have on your son and your former partner who looks after him for most of the time, both in relation to the financial help you give and to the help you give in looking after your boy.  As to financial help we do not think that is a strong point because you have enough savings so that even if you are sent to prison you can continue to pay maintenance.  But we do acknowledge the assistance you give and that has affected our sentence as I shall describe in a moment. 

3.        Advocate Nicholls has urged a non-custodial sentence.  We cannot agree with that.  This was a dealing activity which you clearly have been undertaking, it may be comparatively low-level dealing, but the Court has repeatedly said that those who deal in drugs will go to prison in normal circumstances.  However, we think we can reduce the conclusions, not least to ensure that you are out of prison by the time your boy goes to his secondary school so you can be there to support him, making allowance for the time you have already spent on remand. 

4.        The sentence of the Court is as follows:-on Count 1, that is the speeding, a fine of £100 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, which will be consecutive, but you clearly have the funds to pay that so we will give you 14 days in which to pay that fine.  Count 2: 9 months' imprisonment, Count 3; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 4; 2 weeks' imprisonment, Count 5; 9 months' imprisonment, Count 6; 2 weeks' imprisonment and Count 7; 1 week's imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent, so that is a total of 9 months' imprisonment with a £100 fine and 2 weeks' in default, consecutively should that arise. 

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

6.        We hope very much that when you come out you will continue to be free of cannabis and, as we say, there is nothing to prevent you moving ahead with your life. 

Authorities

Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.