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- Gilbraith and Rawlinson [2017] JRC 155 (22 September 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2017/2017_155.html
Cite as: [2017] JRC 155
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commission, and Jurats Nicolle and Grime |
The Attorney General
-v-
Michael Edward Gilbraith
Dylan Jacob Rawlinson
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Michael Edward Gilbraith
|
2 counts of: |
Being concerned in the making of an offer to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 1 and 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3). |
|
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 4). |
|
2 counts of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 6 and 7). |
|
2 counts of: |
Offering to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 9 and 10). |
Age: 29.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Gilbraith was stopped and searched by officers in Parade Gardens. He was found to be in possession of seven individually wrapped lumps of cannabis. A total of 64 grams of cannabis resin was found (Count 4). In addition he was found to be in possession of a set of digital scales and some plastic wrapping.
A search warrant was executed at Gilbraith's address and officers found several small quantities of cannabis (Count 6), four 50mg tramadol capsules (Count 7) and a quantity of perforated paper tabs.
In interview Gilbraith confirmed that he intended to supply the cannabis found on his person, which was the remainder from a 100g cannabis bar he had purchased.
Gilbraith's mobile phone was examined and revealed a series of text messages between himself and others including Rawlinson concerning the supply of cannabis, LSD and MDMA. Rawlinson was arrested and interviewed.
Both entered basis of pleas to Counts 1 and 2 that although offers were made, no MDMA was actually supplied. LSD was also offered but the tabs supplied were 'duds'. Text messages revealed the supply of cannabis by Gilbraith and Rawlinson to their associates, but the exact quantity of cannabis supplied was unknown (Count 3).
There were further text messages found on Gilbraith's phone regarding offers to supply dried out 5 (Count 9) and 20 (Count 10) LSD tabs.
Details of Mitigation:
Good character, remorse and guilty pleas albeit late guilty pleas.
Previous Convictions:
No previous convictions but a parish hall appearances for possession of cannabis and minor motoring offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
12 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 6: |
No separate penalty. |
|
Count 7: |
No separate penalty. |
|
Count 9: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 10: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 12 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Costs sought in the sum of £500in non-custodial sentence imposed.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment). |
|
Count 2: |
180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 6: |
No separate penalty. |
|
Count 7: |
No separate penalty. |
|
Count 9: |
180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 10: |
180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
Total: 180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
No costs order made.
Dylan Jacob Rawlinson
|
2 counts of: |
Being concerned in the making of an offer to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 1 and 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3). |
Age: 22 but 21 at time of offences.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Gilbraith above.
Details of Mitigation:
Good character, youth, remorse and guilty plea albeit late guilty pleas.
Previous Convictions:
No previous convictions but parish hall appearances for possession of cannabis and offering to supply cannabis as well as minor motoring offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
150 hours' Community Service Order. |
|
Count 2: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
Total: 150 hours' Community Service Order.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Costs sought in the sum of £500 if non-custodial sentence imposed.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, (equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment). |
|
Count 2: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent. |
Total: 150 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
No costs order made.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate S. A. Pearmain for Gilbraith.
Advocate J. N. Heywood for Rawlinson.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. You are both to be sentenced on joint charges of being concerned in the making of an offer to supply MDMA, being concerned in the making of an offer to supply LSD and being concerned in the supply of cannabis.
2. Gilbraith is also to be sentenced for possession with intent to supply of cannabis, possession of cannabis, possession of 4 tramadol capsules and two counts of offering to supply LSD.
3. MDMA and LSD are Class A controlled drugs, cannabis is a Class B controlled drug as is tramadol. In so far as the Class A drugs are concerned the prosecution do not treat this as a trafficking case, following a clear line of authority that the guidelines for trafficking offences should not be applied to offences under Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, see the case of McDonough-v-AG [1994] JLR N7. The prosecution does treat the cannabis as a trafficking offence although the amounts fall below the lowest starting point in Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.
4. Both defendants are men of good character. The social enquiry report assesses Gilbraith as being at a medium risk of reconviction and Rawlinson at the upper end of the lower risk band of reconviction. Although both defendants pleaded guilty on an agreed basis, it was late in the day and after a considerable amount of work that had been done by the prosecution.
5. Rawlinson was aged 20 and 21 at the time of the offences and following AG-v-Cameron [2008] JLR N 44 Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies to him.
6. The prosecution, having taken into account the mitigation and the documents before the Court, seeks a total sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for Gilbraith and 150 hours' Community Service Order for Rawlinson, which is the equivalent of 9 months' imprisonment. The prosecution also seeks an order for costs of at least £500 each.
7. In terms of mitigation, taking Rawlinson first, we have taken into account his guilty plea, albeit it was late, his good character, his youth, his clear remorse and the references that he has provided to the Court. Advocate Heywood, on his behalf, does not resist the conclusions of the Crown and we agree that those conclusions are correct. We are therefore going to impose a Community Service Order on Mr Rawlinson and we trust that we will never see you again in this Court.
8. Turning to Gilbraith, the sentence sought by the prosecution already, as we have said, takes into account the documents before the Court and his mitigation, namely his guilty plea, again late, his good character, his letter of remorse, his references and the particular support of his family. We think the conclusions of the Crown are correct in his case, but every court has a prerogative of mercy and in this case the circumstances of his family and his role within it are such that we are going, exceptionally and as an act of mercy, to impose the alternative of a Community Service Order.
9. Turning to the issue of costs, the prosecution as we have said seeks order for costs of at least £500 in the event of community service being imposed, because of the work it had had to undertake in preparing for the trial, which resulted in an amended Indictment and which has led to the pleas of guilty being accepted. Whilst we recognise that there may be circumstances on which costs might be awarded in criminal cases of this kind, in this case the defendants are of limited means; Advocate Pearmain for Gilbraith made it clear that any order for costs against him would not in fact be paid by him but by his family, who are of course innocent of these crimes. We think that ordinarily this aspect of a criminal case is dealt with in the amount the court allows by way of mitigation for the guilty plea rather than by imposing what might be perceived by defendants as an additional penalty. We are not therefore going to order or award costs.
10. Mr Gilbraith, on Count 1 you are sentenced to 180 hours' Community Service Order, which is the equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment. We impose the same sentence for Counts 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10, concurrent. We impose no penalty for Counts 6 and 7. That makes a total sentence of 180 hours' Community Service, which is the equivalent of 12 months' imprisonment.
11. Mr Rawlinson, on Count 1 we impose a sentence of 150 hours' Community Service which is the equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment. We impose the same sentence for Counts 2 and 3, concurrent, which makes a total sentence of 150 hours' Community Service, which is the equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment.
12. We dismiss Counts 8, 11, 12 and 13.
13. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized.
14. There is no order as to costs.
Authorities
Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.
McDonough-v-AG [1994] JLR Note 7a.
AG-v-Cameron [2008] JLR N 44.
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.
Le Pavoux-v-AG [2003] JLR Note 31.
Prentice-v-AG [2004] JLR Note 3.