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 Le Jehan [2022] JRC 045 (18 February 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_045.html
Cite as: [2022] JRC 45, [2022] JRC 045
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - possession - Class B.
|
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Pitman and Cornish. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Jobe Ashley Robert Le Jehan
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). |
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the supplying of, or in the making of an offer to supply, a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 3). |
Age: 24.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 16th July 2021 Police executed a search warrant at the Defendant's home address during which 133 grams of cannabis (Count 1) were found in a plastic bag along with digital scales and a brown envelope containing £1,130 cash (Count 3). He was arrested and his iPhone was seized.
In interview, the Defendant provided the PIN and admitted he was a regular cannabis user. Regarding the cannabis seized from his address, he stated there was approximately 100 grams which he bought on "tick" (loan) for £2,000. He explained he would sell some of it but did not keep track of who he supplied to. The Defendant explained that for every gram of cannabis he sold he made a £5.00 profit. When asked about the £1,130 in the brown envelope he confirmed that this was cash he had obtained from selling cannabis.
When his iPhone was examined, messages exchanged between the Defendant and various associates showed that the Defendant was concerned in the supply of multigram deals of cannabis (Count 2). The drug expert estimated that based on the messages and seized cash that the Defendant had supplied 45 grams of cannabis prior to his arrest. The value of the seized cannabis was worth between £3,325 and £3,390.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, admissions and co-operation (provision of phone PIN).
Previous Convictions:
Convictions for twenty-three offences comprising of nine drugs offences. These include being concerned in the supply of cannabis and two offences for producing a controlled drug (cannabis) in 2017, and several offences for possession of cannabis. He was last before the Courts on 22 November 2021 where he was sentenced in the Magistrate's Court to one months' imprisonment for breaching a restraining order and possession of diazepam.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
16 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
16 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
16 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 16 months' imprisonment.
Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £6,948.00.
Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £1,130.00.
No Costs Order sought.
Forfeiture and destruction of the Defendant's iPhone sought.
Delay for destruction of the iPhone sought - to allow for the Defendant's personal photos and videos saved on the iPhone to be transferred onto a memory stick to be provided by the Defendant. Memory stick may be released to the Defendant after he has paid the reasonable costs incurred by the police for providing this service.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs Order sought
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
C. R. Baglin, Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. A. Dix for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced today with regard to three counts relating to the possession and supply of cannabis, a Class B drug. The first count relates to possession with intent to supply cannabis, the second being concerned in the supply, and the third count possession of criminal property.
2. The evidence of this activity comes from the execution of a search warrant executed by the police on the 16th July last year at your home. The search conducted there led to the seizure of 133 grams of cannabis together with digital scales and a sum of £1,130.00 in cash in a brown envelope on the kitchen worktop.
3. A further warrant was executed at the home of an associate of yours, and amongst the items seized were a drug deal list with your name on the top and a figure of 7.5K to 22.5K at 30 written alongside it.
4. You were interviewed and provided the pin number to your phone, you confirmed that you were a user of cannabis and you said that you bought the cannabis that had been found at your home address on loan. You confirmed you would sell some of it, but you did not keep track of who you supplied it to. Selling this cannabis meant that you could keep some of the cannabis free for yourself. You did not state the name of the person who supplied the cannabis to you. You confirmed that the £1,130.00 that was seized was money you had obtained from selling cannabis although you made no comment on the drug deal list seized from your associate.
5. The analysis of your iPhone showed that you were involved in the supply of multigram deals between March 2020 and July 2021. The drugs that you had in your possession, namely the 133 grams of cannabis, is valued between £3,325.00 and £3,390.00, and the £1,130.00 seized from your home equates to approximately 45 grams of cannabis being sold prior to the execution of the search warrant.
6. The quantity of drugs you had in your possession was outside the guidelines set out in the guideline case of Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 but we note the example cases that the Crown had put before us and indeed the cases referred to by the defence. We have, of course, had regard to the pre-sentencing report which assesses you at being a very high risk of re-conviction, and we also keep in mind that you have previous convictions which include those for drug offending.
7. We note also the mitigation that is available to you. You have the benefit of very early guilty pleas and although, as the Crown has said you cannot be said to be of good character you have only one relevant offence of possession. We also note the other mitigation available to you which is clearly the very high level of co-operation, the provision by you of your pin and the frank admissions that you made in interview and subsequently.
8. We have weighed up carefully the mitigation, but the fact is this case involves the trafficking of Class B controlled drugs and in our judgment, there are no exceptional circumstances which could cause us to depart from the Court's stated policy of imposing sentences of imprisonment. Indeed, you accept that the sentence of imprisonment is inevitable.
9. We deal first with the matter of confiscation which we understand is not disputed and therefore we declare you have benefited in the sum of £6,948.00 and make a confiscation order in the sum of £1,130.00.
10. We turn now to sentence. We have given very careful consideration to all of the matters referred to by your counsel in mitigation, but we cannot think that the Crown has in any sense erred in either its approach or the level of its sentence in this case.
11. Accordingly, we adopt the Crown's conclusions as being correct and with regard to Count 1, you are sentenced to sixteen months' imprisonment. Count 2, 16 months' imprisonment and Count 3, 16 months' imprisonment, all concurrent making a total of 16 months' imprisonment.
12. Now this maybe the first time that you have actually taken ownership of both your problems and the effect that cannabis has on your life, and you appear to recognise that you can get the help that you need in prison. The sentence imposed by the Court will give you the opportunity to take advantage of all the prison can offer you in the positive sense. It will give you the opportunity to become clear, it will give you the opportunity of learning strategies which will help you deal in the future with your life in a more socially appropriate way, and we very much hope you will take the opportunities available to you fully in the time that you are in prison.
13. We order the destruction of both of the drugs and your iPhone but with regard to the latter, we order that destruction to be delayed until your personal pictures have been downloaded to a memory stick to be provided to the Police. That memory stick will not be returned to you until you have met the reasonable costs incurred by the Police in doing that exercise and in the event that there is any difficulty there is liberty to apply to the Court in that regard.
Authorities
Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.
AG v Herd [2021] JRC 223
AG v Taylor JLR [2019 (1) JLR Note 2]
AG v Louis, Louis and Le Jehan [2017] JRC 182
AG v Galbraith & Rawlinson [2017] JRC 155