Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2000/241

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

1st December, 2000.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Seam Michael Lambotte

 

 

3 counts of:	possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: count 1: cannabis resin. count 2: MDMA. count 3: cannabis resin.
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: count 4: cannabis resin.

 

 

Age: 24

 

Plea: Guilty     

 

Details of Offence:

Lambotte was detained for a search under Article 17(3) of the 1978 Law.  The search revealed that he was in possession of cannabis both on his person and in his vehicle.  He was arrested and a more thorough search of his vehicle was undertaken, which revealed 3½ ecstasy tablets valued at between £42 and £52.  11 one ounce blocks of cannabis were found beneath the rubber covering of the gear stick and this had a total weight of 295.06 grams.  He was found in possession of three one ounce bars and a number of smaller pieces of cannabis and some cannabis debris which was considered for personal use.  He, therefore had a total of 14 ounces of cannabis which had a street value of £2,240 and a wholesale value of £1,680.  The total quantity of cannabis for purchase and supply was 377.29 grams.  In interview, Lambotte said that this was his first commercial venture into the supply of drugs and, basically, it was his intention to supply to friends, making a profit of £40 per ounce.  The investigating police officers, from their detailed questioning of Lambotte, formed the opinion that Lambotte's actions were not those of someone inexperienced in dealing in cannabis.

 

Details of Mitigation:

It was accepted by the Crown that mitigation was available to Lambotte.  He pleaded guilty, although his pleas were inevitable.  He had co-operated with the police during interviews, although, on occasions, he was evasive and during the course of interviews his version of events and relevant details changed.  He was treated as a man of good character and therefore a first offender.  He had residual youth and there was also the personal circumstances peculiar to the accused as set out in the social enquiry report.  Defence counsel stated that the supply was only to a small group of three friends which Lambotte had not told the police at the time of interview because he did not wish to involve those friends.  The profit that he would have made was for the purchase of his own share of the cannabis.  Lambotte had found the entire experience of arrest, interview and remand in custody a traumatic one.  He had attended voluntarily at the Alcohol and Drugs Service and it was his stated intention to remain drug free.  He had a good work record, had expressed genuine remorse and was assessed as being at a very low risk of re-offending.  Defence counsel contended that this was an exceptional case in which a non-custodial sentence could be imposed.

 

Previous Convictions:

The accused had one conviction for speeding.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment;
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment;
Count 4:	6 months' imprisonment

 

All concurrent.

£355 confiscation order.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	12 months' binding over order, with condition of attendance at Alcohol and Drugs Service and of submitting to random urine tests.
Count 2:	£350 fine, payable at £50 per week, or 3 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment.
Count 3:	12 months' binding over order, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 year's probation order, with 120 hours' community service.

 

£355 confiscation order.

 

This is not a case of general supply, but rather the supply was of a limited nature.  Lambotte was extremely remorseful and it was also noted that he had voluntarily gone to the Alcohol and Drugs Service and had remained drug free.  The Court also had regard to the low risk of re-offending and the other mitigation available from the documents.  In normal circumstances, intent to supply cannabis would have resulted in a custodial sentence.  However, because of the mitigation, the Court had just been persuaded to deal with the accused by way of a non-custodial sentence.  The accused was being given a chance and it was up to him to ensure that he did not re-offend and, if he did re-offend or breach the Order, then it was highly likely that a custodial sentence would be the consequence.

 

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Lambotte was found in possession of some 377 grams of cannabis resin with intent to supply.  He had purchased the cannabis as a joint venture with three friends to whom he was going to supply most of it, making some profit thereby towards the cost of those drugs which he would keep.

2.        Miss Juste has put forward considerable mitigation in this case; she has pointed to the limited nature of the supply; this was not a case of general commercial dealing.  Her client has pleaded guilty and has the advantage of comparative youth in that he is 24 years of age.  He is a man of good character and indeed we have seen references from his employer which show that he has been in regular employment.  He has the support of his family and that is very important.

3.        It is clear to us that he is extremely remorseful; we have seen the defendant in Court and the report confirms this.  It is also of note that, following his arrest, he went voluntarily to the Drug and Alcohol Service and he remains free of drugs at today's date.  He has been assessed by the Probation Service as being at low risk of re-offending.  We have also had regard to the other mitigation which appears from the papers which are in our possession.

4.        It is undoubtedly the case that in normal circumstances a person found in possession of this quantity of cannabis with intent to supply could expect to go to prison in accordance with the Court's general policy.  However, we have been persuaded - just - that all the mitigating factors to which I have referred enable us to proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.

5.        The sentence, therefore, will be as follows: on count 1, you are to be bound over for 12 months on condition that you attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service as required and, as recommended by the Probation Service, you refrain from taking cannabis and undergo random supervised urine tests in order to check that.  On count 2, you will be fined £350, payable at the rate of £50 per week, or 3 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment; on count 3, you will be bound over for 12 months with the same conditions as count 1 above; on count 4, you will be placed on an unsupervised Probation Order for 12 months, with the condition that you carry out 120 hours' community service.

6.        Lambotte, you have been given a chance and it is up to you to take advantage of it.  We must warn you that should you breach any of those conditions, or should you re-offend during the 12 month period, you will be back before this Court and there is likely to be only one outcome, namely that you will go to prison.

7.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Swift (15th May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Sharman (18th August, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

Campbell & Ors -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.