Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession with intent to supply - Class A.

[2015]JRC170

Royal Court

(Samedi)

18 August 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Steven Philip Buchanan

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 25t12th June, 2015, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Saturday 21^st March, 2015, customs officers attended premises in Windsor Road to execute a search warrant.  During the search of the defendant's room a black cloth bag was found inside a wardrobe.  Inside were 23 packages holding various amounts of heroin at various degrees of purity. 

The total recovered was 278.20 grams, the purity ranging from 11 per cent to 60 per cent.  On weight alone this would have had a street value of around £278,000.  The heroin analysed at between 58 and 60 per cent purity could have been further adulterated. 

The defendant gave "no comment" responses to almost all questions.  His bank accounts later showed he was in employment, but was in some debt. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, albeit inevitable, youth, good working record, support of family. 

Previous Convictions:

Nothing relevant. 

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced in respect of one count of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply.  The quantity was 278.2 grams and the drug was heroin, of varying degrees of purity.  This has a street value of £278,000. 

2.        Whilst you do not have an unblemished record, you have no previous convictions for drugs offences and we view your record as not relevant for our present purposes. 

3.        You are to be sentenced on your version of events, namely that you were simply a minder, having been asked to hold the drugs for an acquaintance for a short period.  Minding drugs for another is an important part of the chain of supply and would not, of itself, cause the Court to look for a lower starting point than that recommended by the Crown.  However, we have had regard to the fact that there is no indication that you were involved at all in the drugs trade and, indeed, the indications in this case appear to be to the contrary. 

4.        We note the extracts from the case of Rimmer (Rimmer and Ors-v-AG [2001] JLR 373) cited by your counsel which indicate that the starting points are guidelines only and that amongst the things we are to take into account are other factors showing the degree to which a defendant was concerned in drug trafficking.  In the circumstances we feel able to reduce the starting point in this case from the 11 years recommended by the Crown to one of 10 years. 

5.        We have considered the mitigation available to you with care.  We note your guilty plea and we note your relative youth and that, from our perspective, is an important factor.  We also pay particular regard to the letters that you have provided from your family which speak extremely well of you and we have taken these very much into account in our thinking. 

6.        I have to tell you that the Court is divided in how you should be dealt with; a number of members of the court feel that you should be dealt with more seriously than we are proposing to deal with you.  However, the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 4½ years. 

7.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

Rimmer and Ors v AG [2001] JLR 373.

Vipond v AG [2004] JLR Note 24.

AG v Wareing [2015] JRC 035.

Selway v AG [2003] JCA 010.