[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/217 - AG v Durkin [1998] UR 217 (30 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/217.html Cite as: [1998] UR 217

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

30 October 1998

Before: F C Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Potter and Bullen

AG

-v-

Roy Lawrence Durkin

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following guilty plea to counts, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, set out below, on 17 July 1998, and following a not guilty plea on 17 July 1998, and conviction on 16 September 1998, on count 3 set out below:

7 counts of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.

1 count of possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

Age: 46

Details of Offence:

Following execution of a search warrant 26 September 1997, carried out at the defendants home, Police Officers recovered two "nine bars" (17.70) ounces of cannabis resin street value approximately £2,832 ) hidden underneath the micro wave ( count 3 ). Officers also recovered 1.41 grams of cannabis resin in Durkins right sock. (count 4 ) together with drug paraphernalia (foil) containing traces of heroin ( count 2 ). Some £7,972 in cash was found during the search. The defendant made frank admissions during interview that he would usually buy around 4 - 6 "nine bars" per year ( count 1). However, he denied that he intended to supply the two nine ounce bars and said that he had bought in bulk on this occasion, because he anticipated a shortage of cannabis during the winter months. He accounted for the cash as money he had earned whilst on sickness benefit as a painter and decorator. Whilst in La Moye prison during a visit from his wife, the defendant was seen by a Prison Officer to remove a package from his mouth. The package contained 1.42 grams of heroin ( count 5 ) and 4.93 grams of cannabis ( count 6). The day the defendant was released on bail, the police executed a search warrant at his home and he was found in possession of 8.75 milligrams of cannabis resin (count 7).

Details of Mitigation:

Co-operated with the police in interview. Frank and ready admissions to offences which would not otherwise have come to light. Guilty pleas ( except possession with intent.)

Previous Convictions:

12 previous mostly when younger and only 2 in respect of drugs - 1995 - importation of cannabis resin, for which he was bound over for 6 months, and 1996 - possession of cannabis for which he was bound over for 3 years.

Conclusions of the Court:

count 1: 3 months imprisonmentcount 5: 5 months imprisonment

count 2: 2 months imprisonmentcount 6: 1 months imprisonment

count 3: 21 months imprisonmentcount 7: 1 months imprisonment

count 4: 1 month imprisonment.

All sentences to run concurrently. TOTAL SENTENCE, 21 months imprisonment. Confiscation Order for £10,325.49, with authority to sell watch. 18 months starting point, 3 months added for not guilty plea. Binding over order made in Magistrates Court on 29 March 1996, to be discharged; drugs to be forfeit and destroyed.

Conclusions:

granted - except for count 3, reduced to 18 months imprisonment.

P Matthews Esq., Crown Advocate

J C Gollop for the Accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: If we look at count 3 on which Durkin was found guilty after a trial by the Inferior Number, we really have to consider whether 21 months urged by the learned Crown Advocate, is too high. This was a supply of just over half a kilogram of cannabis resin with a street value of £2,832.

The Court of Appeal guidelines in Campbell, Mackenzie and Molloy -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA, established that the lowest band for trafficking in class "B" drugs between 1 to 10 kilograms approximately (£5,600 to £56,000 by way of street value,) so we have a starting point here which must be below 24 months.

We have looked at the helpful cases of A.G -v- Cooke (24 November 1995) Jersey Unreported and A.G. -v- Molloy (19 October 1995) Jersey Unreported, which were very similar in the amounts that the Court was looking at, and where both the accused received sentences of 18 months imprisonment, but of course they had mitigation in the form of guilty pleas and good character, neither of which are available to Durkin.

We have carefully read the report of the Director of the Alcohol and Drugs Service, which seems to us to be an apologia for the use of cannabis. Perhaps Mr Saunders might usefully be informed of the policy of this Court, long established, towards drug trafficking. Mr Gollop has, however, pointed out that his client has been through a detoxification process and that he gave information to the police on counts 1 and 2 which led to those parts of the indictment being brought against him, and without that information there would not have been the evidence to support those two counts.

We found this matter difficult but we feel that at the end of the day we need to look at the totality principle and because of the matters set out in great detail in the very helpful background report, and without in any way disputing that for count 3 the sentence of 21 months is not perfectly correct, we are going, on the totality principle, to reduce the sentence very slightly for the reasons that we have set out.

Stand up Durkin. On count 1: you are sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, count 2: 2 months imprisonment, count 3: 18 months imprisonment, count 4: 1 month imprisonment, count 5: 5 months imprisonment, count 6: 1 month imprisonment, count 7:1 month imprisonment, and all those sentences run concurrently. We discharge the Binding Over Order and we order the forfeiture and disqualification and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G -v- Cooke (24 November 1995) Jersey Unreported

A.G -v- Molloy (19 October 1995) Jersey Unreported

Campbell, McKenzie, Molloy -v- A.G (1995) JLR 136 CofA