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- Louis, Louis and Le Jehan [2017] JRC 182 (27 October 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2017/2017_182.html
Cite as: [2017] JRC 182
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - production - supply - possession - Class B.
|
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Nicolle and Pitman. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Andrew Ernest Louis
Paul Anthony Louis
Jobe Ashley Le Jehan
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Andrew Ernest Louis
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3). |
Age: 46.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Andrew Louis and his son Jobe Le Jehan were observed acting suspiciously in a lane in Grouville soon after dark; the following day Police Officers walking the area in daylight found a vaguely defined path through dense undergrowth which led to an open area where 15 cannabis plants were found growing (Count 1). A covert camera was set up which later recorded Andrew Louis visiting the grow site to tend to the plants; he was subsequently arrested at his accommodation where a small personal quantity of cannabis was seized (Count 3). On initial interview Andrew Louis challenged the video footage, however DNA results from objects seized at the site supported the other evidence. Evidence indicated the involvement of Paul Louis, who subsequently admitted he had visited the site but on no more than three occasions and only to water the plants for his brother (Count 1). When Jobe Le Jehan was arrested a wardrobe in his flat was found to have been adapted for the cultivation of cannabis plants by fitting heating, lighting and ventilation equipment (Count 5). Le Jehan admitted visiting the grow site once, helping his father pick and bag flowering buds (Count 1); mobile phone exchanges between them indicated Le Jehan had acted as 'middle man' in the supply of 20 grams of cannabis by his father to an acquaintance (Count 2). A download of Le Jehan's mobile phone evidenced his cultivation of two cannabis plants in his wardrobe, from which he stated he had obtained between 20-30 grams of herbal cannabis (Count 4). In relation to Count 1 a drug expert estimated the value of the crop in a broad range between £8,400 - £31,500.
Details of Mitigation:
Neither Louis cooperative initially, only when faced with compelling evidence, but have benefit of guilty pleas. Both had bad records. Andrew Louis's offending aggravated as has previous conviction for cultivation and by involving son in current offending. Paul Louis was subject to Probation and Community Service Orders at the time of his offending. Le Jehan had a lesser record and the benefit of youth.
Previous Convictions:
156 offences including 25 for drugs, one being a similar cultivation offence sentenced in 2008, for which he was imprisoned for two years.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
2 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
3 months' imprisonment, consecutive. |
|
Count 3: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and equipment sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
Paul Anthony Louis
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1). |
Age: 51.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Andrew Ernest Louis above.
Details of Mitigation:
See Andrew Ernest Louis above
Previous Convictions:
81 offences against his name, no previous drugs; had breached previous Probation, Community Service an Binding Over Orders
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
12 months' imprisonment. |
Total: 12 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and equipment sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment, together with a 12 month Probation Order. |
Total: 150 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 19 months' imprisonment, together with a 12 month Probation Order.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Jobe Ashley Le Jehan
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 4). |
|
1 count of : |
Possession of utensils for the purpose of committing an offence against the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 5). |
Age: 19.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Andrew Ernest Louis above.
Details of Mitigation:
See Andrew Ernest Louis above.
Previous Convictions:
5 offences, including one previous possession of cannabis, for which he was Bound Over for 6 months.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment, together with an 18 month Probation Order. |
|
Count 2: |
30 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, together with an 18 month Probation Order, consecutive. |
|
Count 4: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment, together with an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
120 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment, together with an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent. |
Total: 180 hours' Community Service Order, together with an 18 month Probation Order.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and equipment sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted
R. MacRae, Her Majesty's Attorney General for the Crown.
Advocate A. M. Harrison for A. E. Louis.
Advocate J. Bell for P. A. Louis.
Advocate H. Mistry for Le Jehan.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. You were all involved to a greater or lesser extent in the growing of 15 cannabis plants in a wooded area in Grouville. These plants would have produced between 420 grams and 2.6 kilos of herbal cannabis with a street value of between some £8,000 and £30,000.
2. Andrew Louis, you were the main organiser of this production and you also sold 20 grams to a third party.
3. Paul Louis, you have pleaded guilty on the basis that you visited the site on three occasions to help your brother by watering the plants.
4. You, Jobe Le Jehan, visited on one occasion and assisted your father by picking and bagging buds of cannabis. You were also the middle man in selling the 20 grams on behalf of your father and you also pleaded guilty to producing two plants of cannabis yourself at your home.
5. Taking first Andrew Louis, you have a very poor record including many previous convictions for drugs and, most relevantly, a very similar offence to the producing and growing of cannabis. We have read the references that have been supplied on your behalf and we have also read the letter of remorse which you have written. Advocate Harrison has spoken on your behalf and he has, in our view, said everything which could be said on your behalf. In particular, he has emphasised your wish to be there to support your partner who is expecting your child and has medical issues of her own.
6. We have carefully considered that but we cannot agree that it justifies a non-custodial sentence. As the Court said on the last occasion you were sentenced for growing cannabis: "Growing cannabis plants requires a quite deliberate and continuing intention to break the law". It is not something which is a spur of the moment offence, it continues for quite a period. So given your previous conviction for this we cannot agree a non-custodial sentence and, on the contrary, we think that the Crown has made sufficient allowance for mitigation.
7. The sentence on Count 1 is; 2 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive. We do say that that is far too low for an offence of supplying but the Crown and we have taken into account the totality principle, so we impose 3 months' on that. The total therefore is 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment.
8. Paul Louis, you have no previous drug convictions, although you have a very bad record. In particular you do not appear to have a drug habit. We have also read the references which have been supplied on your behalf. The real point put forward here by your advocate is the limited nature of your involvement. We must sentence, and we do sentence on the basis of the plea which you have put forward which has been accepted by the Crown. On that basis therefore your involvement was limited to three visits to help water the plants. Advocate Bell has referred us to the case of McDonough-v-AG 1994/193 and pointed out that being concerned covers a wide variety of conduct. He says this is right at the lower end and means you do not even cross the custody threshold. We do not agree with that. The fact is that you went three times knowing what was happening; so a prison sentence would be entirely justified. But we agree that given the limited nature of your involvement and the fact that you had no reward and also the progress you have made in overcoming your alcohol problem and, most importantly the determination you clearly are showing to obtain employment and start being productive, we have decided we can impose a non-custodial sentence. But there must be community service as well as a Probation Order.
9. The sentence for the one count you face is one of 150 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 9 months' imprisonment, and a Probation Order for 12 months.
10. I must point out to you of course as you will be aware, that if you breach any of those, so if you reoffend or if you do not do what the probation officer tells you in terms of attending meetings and so on, or if you do not turn up for the community service and work conscientiously whole you are doing it, then you can be brought back here and in those circumstance it seems highly likely that you will go to prison.
11. Jobe Le Jehan, if it was not for your youth you would be receiving a custodial sentence because you were not only involved, albeit in a comparatively limited way, with your father's production, but you were carrying out your own production, quite independently, albeit of a smaller amount and you got involved in the sale of some of your father's cannabis. So that would have led to a prison sentence despite other matters. But your youth has saved you because Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 means that we may not impose a sentence of youth detention unless there is no alternative for one of the reasons set out, and we do not think those are applicable. So we agree with the Crown's conclusions.
12. The sentence in your case is as follows. On Count 1; 150 hours' Community Service Order, on Count 2; 30 hours' Community Service Order, consecutive, Count 4; 150 hours' Community Service Order and Count 5; 120 hours' Community Service Order, both of those concurrent. That is a total of 180 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 12 months' youth detention. We also make a Probation Order for 18 months.
13. I can only repeat what I have just said to your uncle. If you fail to comply with the Probation Order or the Community Service Order, if you do not do all you are expected to do under both those orders then you will be brought back here and be re-sentenced.
14. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the utensils.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.
McDonough-v-AG 1994/193.