Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Austin-Vautier and Le Heuzé |
The Attorney General
-v-
Michael Hodgson
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:
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). |
Age: 64.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 13 June 2023, police attended the home address of the Defendant and his wife. Neither
of the occupants were present at the time. During a search of the home address the police seized a total of 1,611.71 grams of cannabis resin, 2.53 grams of herbal cannabis, £9,750 and €35 in cash. The cannabis had a street value of between £32,240 and £48,360.
Later the same day, officers arrested the Defendant's wife. She told the officers: "I know Michael smokes a bit of cannabis." She was transported to Police Headquarters, interviewed under caution and later released.
Three days later the Defendant returned to Jersey from the UK. Police officers attended the airport and arrested the Defendant on suspicion of possession with intent to supply cannabis and cautioned him. In response to the caution, the Defendant said: "you're not going to believe this boys, my phone got nicked yesterday by the canal in Birmingham. My daughter gave me this one, it has a UK SIM in it...[my wife], she doesn't have a bad bone in her body, I am the baddie...she doesn't have a clue what's going on that is why it is such a hard hit for her."
The Defendant was searched on arrest and an iPhone and bank card were seized. There was nothing evidential found on his phone.
Following arrest, the Defendant was interviewed and answered "no comment" to most questions asked about the cannabis and money found at his home address. He did, however, tell the officers that none of the cannabis belonged to his wife and some of the money belonged to her. The Defendant signed bank disclosure authorities following interview.
The Defendant was again interviewed in November 2023 regarding his bank accounts. He provided the officers with some explanations for the unexplained credits found on his Revolut account and provided "no comment" answers when asked why his Revolut account had been cleared and closed the day before he travelled to Jersey and was arrested
Details of Mitigation:
Early guilty plea, admissions on arrest and in interview as to ownership of cannabis and money found at his home address so that suspicion was removed from others, cooperative with investigation in signing bank disclosure authorities.
Previous Convictions:
The Defendant has eight previous convictions for drug offences including one for possession with intent to supply cannabis in 2003 for which he received a custodial sentence of 9 months.
Conclusions:
Count 1: |
14 months' imprisonment. |
Forfeiture and destruction of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
The Crown seeks a declaration of benefit in the sum of £56,355 and €35 and a confiscation order in the sum of £9,750 and €35.
No costs order sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
Ms C. L. G. Carvalho, Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. When the police searched your house they found a total of just over 1.6 kilos of cannabis resin, which were valued at some £32,000 to £48,000. They also found a small amount of herbal cannabis and some £9,750 in cash and 35 euros, together with electronic scales.
2. By your own admission you have a longstanding cannabis habit and you also have previous drug convictions, including one previous conviction in 2003 for possession with intent to supply cannabis, and seven charges of possession of cannabis between 1998 and 2005; but you have no convictions since then.
3. You have now pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply this cannabis. You answered "no comment" to most questions at police interview. You have now said to the Probation Officer that you intended to keep about half for yourself and supply half to a friend. You said nothing to that effect when interviewed but, as Advocate Bell submitted, we are content to proceed on that version of events.
4. The leading case of Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 suggests a starting point of two to six years for quantities of cannabis between 1 and 10 kilos. The Crown have suggested a starting point of 2 years in your case. We have to say that, given your previous convictions, the amount of cannabis, the cash found, the unexplained entries in your bank account and the scales, the 2-year starting point could be considered lenient and a higher starting-point could undoubtedly have been justified. However, Advocate Bell has put forward mitigation on your behalf. He has emphasised your early guilty plea, which we fully accept and you therefore are entitled to a full one-third discount. He has referred to the references that we have received and read, together with your letter of remorse. The letters include one from your former wife and son, as well as many others. These do indeed show that there is a good and caring side to you.
5. Advocate Bell also pointed out that, since these events, you have been given a medical prescription of cannabis for your various medical ailments. This has been described in a letter from Dr Shabbir, although it is for a lesser amount than you have been consuming. Advocate Bell submits that your offending was in effect a form of self-medication. He also has referred to your good work record and also to the health concerns that you have about a prison sentence. You view a prison sentence with trepidation because of your state of health. However, we have no doubt that - provided the prison authorities are advised of your medical issues - they will be in a position to take more than adequate care of you whilst there and of ensuring that you obtain any medical prescriptions and care that you need. So, we would hope to put your mind at rest that the prison authorities would undoubtedly do their best to take care of you medically.
6. If matters rested there, the Court considers that the conclusions moved for would have been too low. However, there has been considerable delay in this matter. First of all, there was a period of delay from June to November 2023, and then there was a period from November 2023, after your second interview, until September 2024 when you were brought before the Magistrate's Court. We can understand the first period of delay where inquiries had to be made into your bank accounts and so on, although it seems a little long. Although we have had an explanation from the Crown Advocate, we regard those explanations as being inadequate, and we can see no good grounds for the extraordinary period of delay from November 2023 to September 2024, that is some nine and a half months between you having had the second interview and you being brought before the Magistrate's Court. Putting the two together, this matter has been hanging over you for some fourteen months, and we take that fully into account. It is for that reason, therefore, that we conclude that the 14 months' moved for by the Crown is correct. As we say, had it not been for the delay, we think it should have been a higher sentence.
7. The Court has then considered whether, as an alternative to that custodial sentence, a Community Service with or without probation should be imposed. The Court cannot agree that that is the right thing to do. This was a deliberate decision on your part to possess and supply cannabis, and you, being a person who had a previous conviction for possession with intent to supply and seven previous convictions for possession, knew exactly what you were doing.
8. In the circumstances, the Court considers that there is no alternative to prison. We therefore impose a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the paraphernalia
Authorities
Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999