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 Taylor [2019] JRC 022 (11 February 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2019/2019_022.html
Cite as: [2019] JRC 022, [2019] JRC 22
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - Drugs - possession and supply - Class A and Class B
|
Before : |
Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen, Blampied, Thomas, Pitman, Christensen and Dulake. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Jack Taylor
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 7th December, 2018, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
2 counts of: |
Being knowingly concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 1 and Count 2). |
|
2 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 3 and Count 5). |
|
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). |
Age: 26.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The house in which the defendant was living was subject to an Art. 29 PPCE search. During the search small personal quantities of cannabis and some MDMA powder were found in the lounge and kitchen; the defendant who was on the premises, admitted that some of the cannabis (C5) and the MDMA (C3) was his. A search of his bedroom revealed a locked cash tin which the defendant opened on request, it contained 8 bars of cannabis resin (C4 & C5) and £1,010 cash; he was arrested, cautioned and subsequently interviewed. The defendant admitted he supplied drugs to friends on a 'social supply' basis and that 740g (C4) from the 8 bars was for that purpose, the remainder being 'personal' (C5). Investigation of the defendant's mobile 'phone revealed messaging indicative of previous dealing over a five month period, he was re-interviewed and made further admissions, on which Counts 1 & 2 were based.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas tendered at a very early stage; while some of these may have been all but inevitable he was cooperative in interview admitting his involvement in personal use and supply of both MDMA and cannabis. Good references, excellent work record, stable home life with family members being supportive. He had not reoffended during the seven months he had been allowed bail.
Previous Convictions:
One appearance before Youth Court age 16 for 3 offences - fined and Bound Over 6 Months. More notable one appearance before Magistrate's Court age 21 - fined £250 for possession of MDMA.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1 |
Starting point 7 years' imprisonment. |
4 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2 |
Starting point 7 years' imprisonment. |
18 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3 |
Starting point 7 years' imprisonment. |
No separate penalty. |
|
Count 4 |
Starting point 7 years' imprisonment. |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 5 |
Starting point 7 years' imprisonment. |
3 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 4 years' imprisonment, all sentences to run concurrently.
Declaration of Benefit totalling £36,205 by way of relevant criminal conduct as set out in an Attorney General's Statement and a Confiscation Order in the available sum of £1,010:00 sought by the Crown.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought and the iPhone seized.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.
|
Count 1: |
3 years and 6 months' imprisonment |
|
Count 2: |
18 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
3 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains five counts of drug offences, some of drug trafficking offences in the sense that the charge is of being knowingly concerned in the supply of controlled drugs. One of those relates to ecstasy and two relate to cannabis. You also have two charges of possession.
2. Your counsel has raised in the course of his addressing mitigation a number of legal points and I am going to reserve the Court's judgment in relation to those points so that the explanation of them will be delivered later on. I am not going to tackle them with the few remarks I need to make just now.
3. The Court is of the view that the custodial threshold is passed, in other words that it is appropriate that we sentence you to a sentence of imprisonment in relation to the offences in this Indictment.
4. We have noted in particular, that there is overall a course of conduct of drug trafficking in the different drugs, and that that merits a custodial sentence. We have looked at what the starting points would be, and we have taken the starting point of 7 years' imprisonment, we are not applying any Valler uplift, (Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383) again for reasons which I will go into when the final judgment comes down, and we have had regard to all of the mitigation which your counsel has very ably put before us and taken that into account, particularly taking into account the relatively low quantity of MDMA tablets with which were are concerned today.
5. In the circumstances you are going to be sentenced as follows:-
(i) On Count 1 to a total of 3½ years' imprisonment;
(ii) On Court 2 to a total of 18 months' imprisonment;
(iii) On Count 3, is a variation of the Crown's conclusions, 1 month's imprisonment;
(iv) On Count 4, 12 months' imprisonment;
(v) On Count 5, to a total of 3 months' imprisonment.
They will all run concurrently, so it makes the total of 3½ years' imprisonment.
6. The reason that those sentences are imposed is first of all being consistent with the Court policy for sentencing for drug offences, but noting in particular, for example what is said in the Social Enquiry Report that you would not have any knowledge about the impact your drug dealing would have on those who are taking the drugs from you, and we regard that as being very important part of the rationale which the Court uses when imposing drug sentences. It is that drug dealing causes damage to people in this Island. The drug sentences under the drugs law are there for just that purpose. To recognise that, and at your age should have known better. You have time to think further about that while you are serving your sentence, and to start again afresh because that is the way you should be regulating your life from now on.
7. You are sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment.
8. We order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities