Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Breach of Probation Order - Drugs

[2021]JRC038

Royal Court

(Samedi)

5 February 2021

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Blampied and Ronge

The Attorney General

-v-

Lee Thomas John Buckley

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following an admitted breach of Probation Order imposed on 29^th August 2008 for the following charges:

First Indictment

1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 1).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Counts 1 and 2).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Acquiring or having possession of property representing the proceeds of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 38(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988.  (Count 1)

Age:  43

Plea: Breach of probation admitted.

Details of Offence:

Lee Buckley admitted a breach of a 3 year Probation Order imposed by the Royal Court concurrently on four Counts of drug related offences on 29 August 2008.

 

A copy of the original Summary of Facts and the sentencing judgment was provided to the Court

 

The Current Social Enquiry report set out that the defendant, initially complying with the Order, was diagnosed with cancer in March 2009 and following treatment in England, failed to return to Jersey to carry on the Order.  Breach proceedings were commenced but the defendant then contacted Probation, and he continued the Order until late August that year.

 

The Order was effectively breached by the Defendant's admitted use of heroin on 24^th August 2009 (Divider 3, paragraph 13 of the Breach Report) but it is clear Probation were still willing to work with him and invited him in.  However, he was not seen again until he returned to the Island last year.

 

As is clear from the Reports and his updated previous convictions, he relapsed into drug use and associated offending while in England in the intervening period, committing no less than 30 dishonesty offences in that time, among other numerous instances of failing to surrender.

 

A Psychological report from Dr Boucher, Clinical Psychologist, was ordered by the Court on 27^th November last year.

 

Dr Boucher concludes that the Defendant faces a number of issues arising from his history of drug use and life events leading to anxiety and depression that would benefit from psychological therapy

Details of Mitigation:

Admitted the breach. 

Previous Convictions:

79 previous convictions. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to First Indictment.

Total:  2 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to First Indictment.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment.

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The defendant is to be sentenced following admitted breaches of a 3 year Probation Order imposed by the Court concurrently on four counts of drug related offences on 29^th August, 2008 (AG v Buckley [2008] JRC 144).  He was then a 31 year old heroin addict with a bad record.  The sentencing Court said this at paragraph 7:

"Whilst the conclusion of the Crown [3 years and 6 months' imprisonment] would ordinarily be appropriate, we are prepared in this case as an act of mercy to take the very exceptional step of considering the imposition of a 3 year probation order on condition that the defendant remains drug-free and submits himself to random testing for the whole of that period.  We do so because we feel that the defendant is at a crossroads.  The route of all of your problems is your addiction to heroin which you have acknowledged in your letter, with which we have been very impressed.  You describe it as an awful affliction, which we agree it is, causing misery not only to you but to your family, and you have expressed a deep sense of shame.  You have always had, and continue to have, the support of your family, who in no way condone your addiction, and you have asked to be given what would be a last chance to beat this addiction, with the support of your family and the Drugs and Alcohol Service."

The Court then went on to say at paragraph 8:

"You should be under no illusion that if there is any breach of these conditions, if they are accepted by you, you will be returned to this Court and would likely face a custodial sentence."

Under the provisions of Articles 5(3)(c) of the Loi (1937) sur l'atténuation des peines et sur la mise en liberté surveillée the position now is that the Court is to sentence the defendant to the punishment and penalties appropriate to the offence for which he was originally accused and for which he was released on probation.

2.        The defendant complied with the conditions of the Probation Order until around March 2009 and he was then given a further chance by the Probation Department, but in August 2009 he left the island without permission.  It would seem that the defendant had been diagnosed with testicular cancer and he had relapsed into heroin use.  He returned to Jersey in October 2020, but in that eleven year period he committed no less than 30 dishonesty offences including numerous instances of failing to surrender.  He faces on-going criminal proceedings in England and is assessed at a very high risk of reconviction.

3.        The Social Enquiry Report states that it would be a high risk for him to be given a Community Service sanction in view of his previous poor compliance.  This history and the letter the defendant has written to us starkly illustrates the sheer misery and degradation that this heroin addiction has inflicted upon the defendant all of his adult life apart from short periods where he managed to rehabilitate.

4.        In addition to his health problems he has also been psychologically assessed as experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression to the degree and nature that would meet the diagnostic threshold.  He also presents with mixed personality difficulties to the degree that meets the diagnostic criteria for personality disorder and various treatment options have been recommended for him.

5.        We have listened to al the mitigation put forward on his behalf by Advocate Bell.  The defendant has admitted the breaches.  He says that since arriving back in Jersey he has made great strides to getting his life back on track, being abstinent of drugs, staying out of trouble and complying with his bail conditions and we commend him for that.  Using his words, he is "lucky to still have the full love and support of his family", two members of which are in Court.  His parents have also written to us confirming the remarkable progress he has made since arriving in Jersey.  We have no doubt that the defendant's addiction has had a very considerable impact on his family over what is many years, and he is indeed lucky to have such a long suffering patient, loving and supportive family. 

6.        Having taken into account everything that has been said on his behalf, the fact is that the Court in August 2008 took an exceptional step in giving the defendant a chance to rehabilitate and it did give a clear warning as to what would happen if he breached the conditions imposed upon him.  He was given a chance and then further warned of the outcome by the Probation Office in 2009.  It is important that defendants generally appreciate the consequences if they abuse the trust placed in them by the Court.  When the Court warned the defendant that he would face a prison sentence if he breached the orders that were made against him it meant what it said, and as a matter of deterrence we can see no alternative to a custodial sentence being imposed, but reduced from the sentence that the Court had in mind in 2008 to take account of the period of compliance, the difficult circumstances in which his compliance fell away and the time that he spent on remand which would not otherwise be taken into account. 

7.        We therefore sentence the defendant as follows.  Under the First Indictment; Count 1, to 12 months' imprisonment; Count 2, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent; Count 3, 6 months' imprisonment concurrent.  Under the Second Indictment to 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment which makes a total of 18 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

AG v Buckley [2008] JRC 144. 

Loi (1937) sur l'atténuation des peines et sur la mise en liberté surveillée