Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession - supply - Class B

[2020]JRC264

Royal Court

(Samedi)

18 December 2020

The Attorney General

-v-

Jamie Steven Lagadu

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  19. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

During the execution of a search warrant of the defendant's home, the Defendant was found to be in possession of 6 blocks of cannabis resin weighing 572g with a local street value between £9,000 and £12,000.  The cannabis was found in the loft of the property stored in heat sealed plastic packaging and wrapped in brown tape.  The defendant was also found to be in possession of £8,793 in cash, a variety of weapons and drugs paraphernalia.

Prior to his arrest the defendant attempted to conceal his mobile phone to prevent police seizing it.  On analysis of the defendant's mobile phone, it was found that that the defendant was involved in drug dealing and maintained a 'dealer list'.  Mobile phone evidence also showed the defendant would threaten those he supplied drugs to for payment of debts they owed him.

Details of Mitigation:

Youth, early guilty plea, difficult upbringing, offer of employment if a non-custodial sentence was imposed. 

Previous Convictions:

The defendant has 6 previous convictions for 16 offences including 2 convictions for possessing cannabis and convictions for being concerned in the supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug namely cannabis and MDMA.

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Confiscation hearing to be held at a later date.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, weapons and drug paraphernalia made.

No order for costs.

Confiscation hearing adjourned to 29^th January 2021.

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The defendant is here before this Court charged with one offence of possession of cannabis resin with intent to supply.  The circumstances are that he was found to be in possession of 572 grams of cannabis resin which has a local street value of between £9,000 and £12,000.  The resin was found in six blocks which had been packaged in heat sealed bags wrapped in brown tape and placed inside a plastic shopping bag; and during the search of the defendant's home, the officers also seized two money jars which contained a large quantity of cash comprising largely £20 notes, the total involved there was £2,624.  In addition, there was a shoe box on top of the kitchen units found to have £6,169 in it, and the application for confiscation in relation to this cash has been adjourned until 29^th January 2021 when more information will be before the Court. 

2.        In addition to the cash and the drugs there was some paraphernalia and a variety of weapons found in the defendant's bedroom; a cannabis grinder, brass knuckle dusters, an air pistol, a handheld catapult, a butterfly knife, nunchucks and a Stanley knife.  Subsequently the officers were able to examine the defendant's mobile telephone and they found on that telephone messages indicating that he had been involved in the supply of cannabis in messages indicative of dealing and dealer lists and, what the Court regards as a seriously aggravating factor, messages containing threats to others to whom cannabis had been supplied for payment of the debts which they had accrued.  There is an indication in these lists that there are individuals each of whom owed the defendant £2,300, and all this material does indicate that, for all that we are looking at one charge of possession of cannabis with intent to supply, the defendant was quite heavily involved in both the retail and the wholesale supply of drugs. 

3.        The amount which is involved in this particular charge is less than 2 kgs and so takes us outside the guidelines in Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 and in the circumstances, we do not think it is appropriate to look at a particular starting point.  We wish to assess the defendant's overall involvement in drug trafficking in order to decide what the correct sentence ought to be, and the correct sentence in our judgment for this offending, but not this offender, would be 12 months in custody.  However, the defendant is aged 19 and we have to have regard to the legislation which requires us not to send a person of that age to youth detention unless there is no other appropriate way of dealing with him.  In the circumstances of this case we think there is another appropriate way and we do not propose to impose a custodial sentence. 

4.        Having regard to all the material before the Court and his youth and the guilty plea, the references, and particularly having regard to the job offer which is available, we think that the age that this defendant has the right course is to impose a 12 month Probation Order and 180 hours' Community Service.  As I say, the alternative to the 180 hours would be 12 months in custody.

5.        Mr Lagadu, I wish to talk to you more directly.  You have some offending in the past.  It is not as bad as other offending which we have sometimes seen in this Court from people your age, but it is still offending which is something that you need to put behind you.  This is the first time you have been in the Royal Court and I can tell you that we treat drug trafficking, whether it is Class A or Class B drugs extremely seriously and, as you will have been told by your lawyer, it does very often lead to lengthy custodial sentences being passed.  Now, one of the reasons for the legislation is that people recognise, and this Court recognises, that young people make mistakes.  The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that you learn from the mistake and you do not do it again and you are getting a chance today, because of the legislation, because of the sentence we are imposing, you are getting a chance to make sure that you do not make this mistake again.  You have got the job offer.  You clearly are interested in physical fitness and actually to my mind mixing drug taking with physical fitness is a pretty curious mix because why you should want to put drugs into your body when you are practicing your own fitness is something that is beyond me, I cannot understand that.  There is huge life, a wonderful life out there for you if you just take the opportunities that are on offer and you will need the commitment and the help from the Probation Service and your parents to do that and we hope that we will not see you again.

6.        12 months' Probation, 180 hours' Community Service.

7.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and of the paraphernalia and weapons which are described at paragraph 5 of the Crown's summary. 

8.        There is no order for costs. 

Authorities

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136. 

AG v Gill [2018] JRC 196

AG v Jones [2019] JRC 024

AG v Gabb [2020] JRC 107

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014