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- Howes [2018] JRC 105 (15 June 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2018/2018_105.html
Cite as: [2018] JRC 105
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession - supply - class A and B - possession of criminal property.
|
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden and Dulake |
The Attorney General
-v-
Ricky Steven Howes
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 it to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1). |
|
4 counts of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 2, 4, 6, 7). |
|
1 count of: |
Having possession or control of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 8). |
Age: 21
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
The defendant was arrested after his offending came to light as a result of an investigation into more serious drug offences linked to trafficking matters. In pursuance of the more serious matters police officers executed a search warrant at the property where the defendant was living, gaining access to his bedsit in his absence. The various drugs were mainly in plastic bags in a drawer unit, cash was in large bundles in envelopes and a set of scales and a suspected deal list were found. The defendant was found to be in possession of a small quantity of cannabis resin when arrested at another location.
Details of Mitigation:
The defendant was 20 at the time of offending, as he was when he entered guilty pleas to all charges put to him in the Magistrate's Court, 21 by the time of indictment and sentencing. He was polite and co-operative during interview, freely making admissions. Stated he sold small quantities of cannabis to 'mates' reducing the cost of his own use but not covering his expenditure. Believed all the tablets to be ecstasy, which he claimed were purely for personal use. The defendant had been in regular well paid employment in the building trade since leaving school, was in a steady relationship and provided emotional and financial support to his mother. Delay between arrest and Indictment had been unfortunate but unavoidable while police interrogated numerous mobile 'phones and other electrical devices seized as part of the main drug trafficking investigation, eventually establishing no link. Social Enquiry Report assessed the defendant at medium risk of reoffending because of his pattern of drug use and peer group in the period leading up to his arrest, nevertheless recommended Probation and Community Service, the defendant being 'highly motivated' to comply. Employer remained supportive
Previous Convictions:
None. Had received a Written Caution for possession of cannabis resin in 2016.
Conclusions:
Following the principle established in Buesnel the Crown concluded that the defendant's offending was not so serious that he should not benefit from the protection of Article 4(2) of the Young Offenders Law and moved for sentences as follows:
|
Count 1: |
150 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
90 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
120 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 6: |
120 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 7: |
No separate penalty. |
|
Count 8: |
150 hours Community Service Order, equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 150 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment.
Probation Order sought for 12 months.
Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £8,739.00.
Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £2,484.00.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. You fall to be sentenced for 6 counts relating to unlawful drugs of the types and values set out by the Crown in its Statement of Facts. The most serious in terms of quantity and value were three bars of cannabis resin weighing in total 296.78 grams, the value of between £4,500 and £6,000. You intended to supply some of that cannabis to others (who you describe as friends) for money. You bought it in bulk out of your savings.
2. There is little doubt that this count alone would merit a significant period of imprisonment. However, you were 20 years old when you carried out these offences and you are now 21. We note the approach of the court in the AG v Cameron [2008] JLR Note 44 and approach this matter on the basis of Article 4(2) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 2014.
3. We note the mitigation available to you which has been ably advanced on your behalf by your counsel. We note your guilty plea, your cooperation and your prompt admissions and you have no previous convictions, although we do note that you have already had the benefit of a caution for the possession of cannabis from the Parish Hall.
4. Lastly, we have read and paid careful regard to the references that have been advanced on your behalf especially that from your partner which speak very well of you and to a very different part of your character.
5. Dealing first with the question of confiscation, which is not opposed, we make the declaration sought by the Crown that you have benefitted to the extent of £8,759, an order confiscation in the amount of £2484.00.
6. Turning to sentence, the question that we must ask ourselves is whether in all the circumstances your offending was so serious that we could not justify a non-custodial sentence. After anxious consideration we conclude that in all the circumstances including the mitigation to which we have made reference and set out in the reports, we can so conclude that it was not so serious that we cannot justify a non-custodial sentence.
7. Accordingly, we accept the conclusions of the Crown and you are sentenced to 150 hours' Community Service which is the equivalent of 9 months in custody.
8. We also impose a Probation Order of 12 months.
9. Now we are taking chance, you must obey that Probation Order. You must keep and follow the directions of the Probation Service. You must avoid the world of drugs which will inevitably be a temptation to you. If you come back for any breach of the order, or for anything like this in the future you must assume that you have already had your last chance and you must expect a substantial custodial sentence. Have I made that clear?
10. The allocation of Community Service and equivalent sentences are as set out in the conclusions of the Crown.
11. We order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
AG v Cameron [2008] JLR Note 44.
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 2014.
Campbell & ors -v- Attorney General [1995] JLR 136.