Jersey Unreported Judgments

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

[2018]JRC048

Royal Court

(Samedi)

5 March 2018

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Grime and Christensen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Aaron Andrew Webb

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

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

Age:  21. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The defendant's name and possible connection with the purchase of MDMA (Ecstasy) tablets came to the attention of Customs Officers following up leads in an investigation; he was located and arrested on suspicion of being concerned in drug trafficking.  A search was made of the defendant's home, where 145½ tablets were found in his bedroom as well as £650 in cash and 2·08 grams of cannabis resin.  Street value of tablets estimated at £2,120 to £3,610.  During interview defendant stated he had obtained the tablets 'on tick', that he was intending to sell the majority to like-minded friends on a not-for-profit basis, keep some for himself and that the £650 was payment received relating to some of those tablets; stated it had been 'his turn' to get tablets for self and friends.  The defendant provided authority for investigation of his bank accounts and access codes for his iPhone; there were four messages on his phone which appeared to relate to drugs - those messages all within the three days prior to his arrest - and one suspicious transaction on a bank account, the day prior to his arrest, of £108 which he admitted related to payment for 6 tablets

Details of Mitigation:

Cooperative throughout investigation, immediate guilty pleas.  Had ceased all illicit drug use and found new circle of friends.  Following arrest employment at major bank terminated.  While on bail sought and found employment as apprentice plumber.  Remanded into custody on indictment, time in prison a sharp lesson reinforcing resolve to keep clean of drugs.  New employer, impressed by attitude kept apprenticeship available and attended Court as did a number of others who had provided supportive testimonials.  Letter of remorse, declared intentions taken as genuine. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 years and 6 months' imprisonment (from a starting point of 7 years)
Count 2:	2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	456 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	45 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 weeks' imprisonment.

Total:  456 hours' Community Service Order, to be completed within 24 months.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate I.C. Jones for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The defendant, who is 21, stands to be sentenced for possession with intent to supply of 145 ecstasy tablets and possession of a small quantity of cannabis resin.

2.        The defendant told the police that he and a group of likeminded friends would travel to music festivals and had been introduced to a culture of substance abuse for heightened enjoyment.  He had acquired these tablets on tick, which he was going to supply to his friends on a no-profit basis, using a number himself.  The £650 seized from his bedroom represented part of the proceeds of that supply to his friends.

3.        Applying the guidelines in Bonnar & Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626 the starting point for this quantity of tablets is 7 to 9 years and the Crown take a starting point of 7 years and move for a sentence of 3½ years after mitigation.  We agree with that starting point.

4.        Turning to the mitigation it can be said of this defendant that it is exceptional:-

(i)        He has pleaded guilty. 

(ii)       He has no previous convictions so he is a man of good character. 

(iii)      Although not naming his supplier he was fully cooperative with the police giving them the unlock codes for his IPhone and the authority to investigate his bank accounts.  Out of the thousands of exchanges on his IPhone only four were considered to be drug related, received over the few days prior to his arrest.  His bank account showed only one potentially drug related payment of £108 on the day prior to his arrest.  Otherwise his account showed only regular income from employment and outgoings consistent with normal expenditure. 

(iv)      He has achieved well academically at school and had a career in the finance industry which he has now lost. 

(v)       He is assessed at a low risk of reconviction because using the words of the Probation Officer in Social Enquiry Report "he is a first offender, he has an excellent employment record, he has hobbies he pursues outside work and has good relationships with family members." 

(vi)      He has declared his intention to maintain a drug free life style and we were told by the Probation Officer that his declaration of intention is genuine. 

(vii)     He is young.  This offence was committed five months after his 21^st birthday and so he is just outside the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 2014, which prohibits the court imposing a sentence of imprisonment unless firstly the defendant "has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial [sentences]", that obviously does not apply here.  Secondly, "only a custodial sentence would protect the public" again that does not apply here.  And thirdly, "the offending is ...so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified."  This last element could apply, bearing in mind the policy of the court to impose custodial sentences for drug trafficking offences unless there are exceptional circumstances.

(viii)    Having lost his career in the finance industry he has set about securing a second career as an electrician.  He has started that apprenticeship and we have a letter from his employer of 24^th February, 2018, which says in the last paragraph "We are committed to support [THE DEFENDANT] during his court case and have left his employment options open pending the outcome."

(ix)      The Probation Officer in the Social Enquiry Report recommends that the defendant should be given the chance of community service.

(x)       He has the support in court of a large number of people, comprising of family, former employers and friends and he has extensive references which we have considered.

(xi)      He has had the shock of having to serve nearly 2 months' imprisonment prior to his sentencing today.

5.        Ultimately, we have a young defendant before us of good character, who has foolishly got involved with friends in the drug scene, who we accept is genuinely remorseful, and who has as a result of that foolishness lost his career in the finance industry.  He has now found a new path to follow as an electrician and has a place in local firm as we have said.

6.        Notwithstanding the policy of the court, we think there is enough mitigation to justify the court imposing community service as a direct alternative to a sentence of imprisonment, because we think the interests of the community lie in him contributing to the community by working in it constructively, discharging his debt to society and serving his punishment through the many, many hours of work he will have to do under the community service order that we will impose upon him.  It will take him some 2 years to complete the number of hours provide assuming those hours are available.

7.        Taking ecstacy is not a harmless activity, which we are sure the defendant recognises.  It often results in death or near death and you have become perilously close to serving a substantial sentence of imprisonment, but in all these circumstances we are going to give you a chance.  If you ever come before us again on offences of this kind you will almost certainly be sent to prison.  Do you understand that?

8.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 456 hours' Community Service, which is equivalent of 3 years imprisonment.  On Count 2 you are sentenced to 45 hours' Community Service, which is equivalent to 2 weeks imprisonment concurrent, which makes a total of 456 hours community service to be completed within 2 years.

9.        We order the destruction of the controlled substances seized in this case.

Authorities

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999

Bonnar & Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626. 

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014

Campbell and Ors.-v-Attorney General [1995] JLR 136.

Attorney General-v-Fernandes [2009] JRC 197.

Attorney General-v-Howard [2015] JRC 066. 

Attorney General-v-Munks [2017] JRC 170.