Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession with intent to supply - possession - Class B.

[2016]JRC176

Royal Court

(Samedi)

30 September 2016

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Liston and Thomas

The Attorney General

-v-

Grant William Edwards

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

Grant William Edwards

First Indictment

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).

Age:  54.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 19^th May, 2016, officers from to the States of Jersey Police Drug Unit executed a search warrant at the home address of Joseph Samuel Povey ("Povey").  The defendant and Povey were present in the flat.  The defendant was found to be in possession of £1,015.  A carrier bag containing 494.7 grams of cannabis resin was found wedged in the partially open kitchen window (First Indictment, Count 1). 

The defendant's home address was subsequently searched and a lump of cannabis weighing 34.7 grams was recovered (Second Indictment, Count 1). 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea. 

Previous Convictions:

2 convictions for 5 previous offences, 4 drug offences committed in 1989. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

9 months' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

1 month's imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 on the First Indictment.

Total: 10 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £1,105.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court agreed with the Crown's conclusions but considered that a period of Community Service could be imposed rather than imprisonment. 

First Indictment

Count 1:

Starting point 15 months' imprisonment.  160 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

Community Service Order, see above CSO hours in First Indictment, equivalent to 1 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 on the First Indictment.

Total 160 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 10 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

A 12 month Binding Over order is made together with a Treatment Order.

Confiscation Order made in the sum of £1,015. 

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

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

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Court deals first of all with the question of the determination of benefit and the Confiscation Order and sees no reason to depart from the conclusions of the Crown.  We therefore make the determination that the defendant has benefitted from drug trafficking in the sum of £1,525 and we make a Confiscation Order in the sum of £1,015. 

2.        Mr Edwards you are here to be sentenced upon an Indictment which contains a count of possession of cannabis with intent to supply, and on the second indictment a count of possession of cannabis.  The amounts involved we have taken from your counsel to be 490 grams in relation to the possession with intent count and 34 grams for personal possession.  The more serious of those two counts obviously is the possession with intent to supply and the circumstances behind that are that you were minding the drugs for someone else. 

3.        The Crown refers to the case of Vipond-v-AG [2004] JCA 086 and we quote that extract again because it is absolutely pertinent to the reasons why the offence remains serious even though, as far as you are concerned, you were only minding them.  What was said by the Court of Appeal in that case was this:- "a minder performs a fundamental role ensuring that drugs reach their intended market and being entrusted with a large amount of drugs suggests the close relationship with the supplier.  There is therefore no reason why he should not be treated as the principal offender subject to the same starting point as the sentence as any other major participant in arranging the supply of drugs.  It is not entirely clear whether you knew exactly how much you held by way of drugs but, assuming that you did, then it is clear that the reference to a large amount of drugs is not relevant and your counsel is right to refer to the quantity as showing that you were not operating at a high level as is the case in other cases that come before this Court."

4.        We accept that the case of Campbell and Others-v-AG [1995] JLR 136, which is the main authority for us in cannabis trafficking cases does not apply here, because the amount is less than the minimum band and we think that it is possible to deal with this by way of a non-custodial sentence as I indicated to your counsel. 

5.        We take into account your guilty plea and the references which you have and, in particular, although the Crown refers to you as not having a good record, we take into account that in fact you had at least 13 years without convictions and since then there have simply been some minor blemishes at parish hall level.  So we are really treating you as having only the convictions which stopped in 1996.  Having said all that, possession of cannabis with intent to supply is a serious offence and we therefore think that the Crown was right in its conclusions other than the conclusion of a custodial sentence.  So we take a starting point of 15 months' imprisonment and we finish, as the Crown did, with 9 months' imprisonment on Count 1 and 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive on Count 2 but, as I say, we are going to impose a Community Service Order instead. 

6.        Accordingly you are sentenced to 160 hours' Community Service Order.  The default sentences would have been 9 months' on Count 1 and 1 month, consecutive, on the second count on the second indictment.  What that means when I describe it as a default sentence is that if you do not do the community service you are liable to be brought back to court and then the court would be considering imposing a prison sentence.  So you must do it.  In addition to that and in an effort to offer you some help as suggested we impose a binding-over order for a period of 12 months coupled with a treatment order as suggested by the Probation Service. 

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

Authorities

Vipond-v-AG [2004] JCA 086.

Campbell and Others-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Phillips [2013] JRC 036A.

AG-v-Roslan, Whitcombe and Lagadu [2015] JRC 030A.