Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - production - possession - supply - possession of drug paraphernalia - Class B.

[2015]JRC165

Royal Court

(Samedi)

7 August 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael George Thompson

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

Age:  38.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The police found 12 cannabis plants located within three concealed cultivation areas inside the defendant's address (Count 1).  It was noted that significant effort had been made to create growing space for the plants and were fitted with monitors for temperature and humidity.  One of the cultivation areas had also been insulated to muffle the noise from the extraction unit.  The plants were observed to appear to be in good health. 

In addition the police seized various drug paraphernalia items (Count 2) from the flat including cannabis seeds, cultivation notes and assorted growing equipment. 

A small amount of cannabis (Count 3) was also located within the defendant's flat. 

The defendant was interviewed the same day and made a full and frank admission to cultivating cannabis.  He admitted to being a long term user of the drug and cultivated cannabis in order to be self-sufficient.  He told officers he smoked a gram per day which cost between £15-£20. 

The defendant's mobile phone was forensically examined.  The defendant confirmed that a number of text messages in 2013 and 2014 were about the supply of cannabis.  The defendant also admitted to supplying cannabis at other times not recorded in the texts (Count 4 and 5). 

The drug expert estimated the cannabis plants would have had an approximate street value of between £5,040 and £25,200 with a potential yield of between 28 grams and 84 grams of cannabis per plant, at a current street value of between £15 and £25 per gram of herbal cannabis.  The final yield cannot be known for certain, the expert's estimate would mean that for the 12 plants the total yield would have been between 336g and 1008g. 

Details of Mitigation:

Benefit of a guilty plea, co-operative with the Police, good working record and a supportive partner. 

Previous Convictions:

The defendant had no relevant previous convictions and had a motoring offence from the Magistrate's Court and a Parish Hall sanction for breach of the peace. 

Conclusions:

Total: 15 months' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order hearing to be adjourned.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and utensils sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

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

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment for the production of cannabis, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of cannabis, which was for personal use, and two counts of supplying cannabis.  The amount of the production is slightly unclear but there were certainly twelve plants and, depending on the final yield, it was somewhere between 336 grams and 1,008 grams.  If at the higher end you would be within what are known as the Campbell guidelines (Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136).  The plants were considered to be in very healthy condition, the best the interviewing officer had ever seen, it was said, and so it seemed likely, and this has not really been disputed before us, that the yield would have been towards the higher end of the scale.  The photographs which the Court has been shown indicate that this was a serious operation; it was clinically conducted and quite sophisticated. 

2.        It is a sad case that we have before us because the legislature treats the production of cannabis as a drug trafficking offence.  It attracts up to 14 years' imprisonment and, as has been said in some of the cases, the growing of cannabis represents a continuing daily breach of the law because they need tending each day and, no doubt, that breach therefore continued over many months in this particular case. 

3.        We have treated you as a first offender.  We have treated the supply offences as, Advocate Landick has described, as social supply although whether that makes any significant difference in the context of the offences which are before us at the moment, is perhaps marginal.  We have been considering at some length whether to impose a sentence of community service or a custodial sentence and your counsel has said everything that could possibly be said on your behalf.  We think in the circumstances of the case that it is right, given the continuing breach of the law and given your age, you obviously did know better, that we need to impose a custodial sentence and for those reasons the Crown's conclusions are granted. 

4.        You will accordingly go to prison for a period in total of 15 months on Count 1, 12 months on Count 2, 1 month on Count 3, 12 months on Count 4 and 12 months on Count 5, all to be served concurrently, making a total of 15 months' imprisonment. 

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

6.        The question of the benefit figure is in dispute and therefore we defer that matter for further investigation. 

Authorities

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG v Lane [2015] JRC 026.

AG v Read [2012] JRC 004.

AG v Rodrigues [2014] JRC 075.

AG v Williamson [2011] JRC 232.

AG v Mills [2009] JRC 235.

AG v Bisson [2009] JRC 151.