Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Le Coguiec [2017] JRC 120 (28 July 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2017/2017_120.html
Cite as: [2017] JRC 120
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - Drugs - importation - Class A and B.
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Liston and Ronge. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Beau Samuel Le Coguiec
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
3 counts of: |
Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1, 2 and 3). |
Age: 21
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 5th April, 2016, customs officers intercepted an envelope at Postal Headquarters which was addressed to the defendant. Inside the envelope were 4 brown paper wraps which were confirmed to contain 0.595 grams of cannabis resin (Count 2). Officers attended the defendant's address and the defendant denied ordering the drugs. Due to a lack of evidence no further action was taken against the defendant at that time.
On 16th February, 2017, customs officers intercepted a white jiffy envelope which did not bare the recipient's name but had been sent to the defendant's address from England. Inside the packet were 49 MDMA tablets and 2 half scored MDMA tablets (Count 1). Officers executed a search warrant at the address and the defendant was present and was arrested. Officers seized cash, drugs paraphernalia, a mobile phone and a silver foil pouch which tested positive for the presence of cannabis. The defendant admitted that the foil pouch had contained 10 grams of herbal cannabis which had also been delivered to his address from England via the postal service (Count 3). An examination of the defendant's mobile phone revealed various text messages which indicated that the defendant was concerned in the supply of controlled drugs.
The street value of the MDMA (50 tablets) would have been between £1,000 to £1,250.
Details of Mitigation:
Youth and good character.
Previous Convictions:
Motoring conviction when the defendant was a youth. The Crown treated the defendant as a man of previous good character.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
312 hours Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order and Treatment Order. |
|
Count 2: |
50 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order and Treatment Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
70 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Treatment Order, concurrent. |
Total: 312 hours' Community Service Order, (equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment) plus a 12 month Probation Order and treatment Order.
Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £770.
Costs sought in the sum of £500.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted but no order for costs made.
Confiscation Order made in the sum of £770.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate N. H. MacDonald for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. The defendant is to be sentenced for three counts of postal importation of MDMA, cannabis and cannabis resin. The quantities of cannabis were small and so we are concerned in the main with the MDMA which comprised 50 tablets with a street value of between £1,000 and £1,250.
2. The starting point for such an importation applying the guidance set out in AG-v-Bonner and Noon -v-AG [2001] JLR 626 is 7 - 9 years and the prosecution here have taken the lower starting point of 7 years with which the defence agree.
3. The defendant is 21 and we have had regard to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 which provide that we should not impose a sentence of imprisonment unless there is no other method of dealing with the defendant, because it appears to the Court that, firstly the person has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them, secondly a custodial sentence would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from the person or, thirdly, the offence or the totality of the offending is otherwise so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.
4. The defendant has one motoring offence, and we therefore do regard him as a person of good character, but he is assessed at a high risk of reconviction because of the risks associated with his background and lifestyle and also the late diagnosis of ADHD and we have seen the problems that that has caused. Even so, because of his youth and good character the prosecution move for a Community Service Order of 312 hours in total which is the equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment, with a 12 month Probation Order with a condition for treatment, to all of which the defendant has given his consent.
5. In terms of mitigation as we have said he is a person of good character, he has pleaded guilty and he is, of course, young and much to his credit is now in full time employment. We have read his letter and the letter from his mother. His mother and his grandmother are in Court together with his girlfriend. We therefore feel able to grant the conclusions of the Crown.
6. On Count 1 you are sentenced to 312 hours' of community service and a 12 month Probation Order with a condition of treatment; on Count 2 you are sentenced to 50 hours' community service, concurrent, with a 12 month Probation Order and a condition of treatment and on Count 3: 70 hours' community service, concurrent, with a 12 month Probation Order with a condition of treatment. That makes a total of 312 hours' community service, which is equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment, and a 12 month Probation Order with a condition of treatment.
7. Now you are clear that you are going to cooperate with the Probation Department. You appreciate that with that number of hours of community service it will take over some 2 years to complete, nearly every weekend you are going to have to turn up and do the hour's necessary. You have to turn up when requested. You have got to conduct yourself properly otherwise if you do not you will be brought back here and you will go to prison almost certainly. Community service is no easy opt-out; is a serious penalty which is rightly being imposed by the Court. You have come really close to going to prison, I hope you realise that. You were about to go to prison for 2 years. It is clear that you need to take your medicine as prescribed which is something that has been a problem I think in the past and you have got to change your lifestyle. We noted what your girlfriend said. She is somebody who we think is important to you, and she has given you, as we understand it, an ultimatum so if you do not change not only are you going to be back before this Court but you are going to lose her and no doubt the respect of your family. So you have got this opportunity and we just hope that you take it.
8. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
9. We are not going to make an order for costs.
Authorities
AG-v-Bonner and Noon -v-AG [2001] JLR 626.
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.
Costs in Criminal Cases (Jersey) Law 1961.