Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC129

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

20^th July 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

David Thomas

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 14^th May, 2004, following a guilty plea to:

 

2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Count 1: cocaine Count 2: MDMA
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Count 3: MDMA.
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Count 4: Cannabis resin. Count 5: cannabis resin.

 

 

Age:     44.

 

Details of Offence:

Accused arrested in town bar in possession of cylindrical block of cocaine and three paper wraps - total weight 135.27 grams (purity between 40% and 41%) with a street value of £10,843.00 (Count 1), 155½ tablets of MDMA (average content between 74 and 80 mg) with street value of £1,555 (Count 2), cigarette comprising 126 mg cannabis resin (Count 4), set of scales, mobile telephone and £751.26 cash..

Subsequent search of accused's home resulted in seizure of further cannabis resin with total weight of 27.68 (street value £164.50) (Count 5), £4,000.00 cash and another set of scales.

In interview accused admitted regularly using cannabis, occasionally using ecstasy and cocaine but said he did not use heroin.  Full and frank admissions as to his intention to supply the cocaine and ecstasy and further admission to having supplied 45 tablets of MDMA prior to his arrest (Crown proceeded on basis 44½ in fact supplied) (Count 3).  Also admitted having used a further wrap of cocaine taken from the cylindrical block on day of his arrest.  Refused to name his supplier.  Said this was first occasion on which he had become involved in dealing cocaine and ecstasy but that he had previously sold cannabis.  Estimated he would have made £2,000 to £3,000 combined profit on sale of drugs.  Cannabis recovered was for personal use.

Accused had received the cocaine and ecstasy on credit (suggesting he formed an important and trusted link in chain of supply).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Admissions.  Remorse.

Record including convictions before the Royal Court for offences involving supply of cannabis resin, possession with intent to supply cannabis resin, possession of ecstasy and possession of amphetamine sulphate.  Gap in offending since 1996.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4½ years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	1 week's imprisonment.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, all concurrent.
TOTAL:	8 years' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Appropriate starting point on Count 1 of 10½ years' imprisonment if only cocaine involved.  However, applying Valler correct starting point 12 years' (one Jurat would have taken starting point of 12½).  Guilty plea but not much option in relation to Counts 1 and 2.  In relation to Count 3 accused had effectively written his own indictment.  Record but no convictions for 8 years.  Court accepted accused was remorseful and that he appreciated the consequences of his actions.  Reference taken into account.  On Count 1 Crown had allowed too much deduction from the starting point.  Correct deduction 4½ years.  Sentence as follows:

 

 

Count 1:	7½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4½ years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	1 week's imprisonment.
Count 5	1 month's imprisonment, all concurrent.
TOTAL:	7½ years' imprisonment.

 

 

A. J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Michel for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Thomas, at the time of your arrest you were engaged in selling drugs in a public house.  You had with you 135 grams of cocaine with a street value of approximately £10,700 which you intended to sell.  You had also gone there with 200 tablets of Ecstasy; you had sold 45 and were intending to sell the rest.  You were doing all this for financial gain.

2.        We must first consider the correct starting point.  If the cocaine charge had stood on its own this would fall within the 10 to 13 year bracket for 100 - 250 grams; the correct starting point we consider would be 10½ years.  Applying the principle in Valler [2002]JLR383 we have to take into account the fact that you were also going to sell 200 tablets of Ecstasy and we think that the right way to reach the total starting point, taking account of this, is to add 1½ years making 12 years.  I should add that one of the Jurats would consider that the correct aggregate starting point would have been 12½ years.  The remainder take the view that the correct starting point is 12 years, having regard to the nature and scale of your involvement and having regard also to Le Mière & Blackmore -v- AG (25^th March, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/68].

3.        In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea.  You did not have a great deal of option in relation to Counts 1 and 2 but we accept that you wrote your indictment in relation to Count 3 and we have therefore given specific credit for that. 

4.        We also take into account that you have not committed any offences for some 8 years, but we note that you have a previous conviction for drug dealing and have served a prison sentence for that.

5.        We accept as your counsel has asserted on your behalf that you are remorseful for and appreciate what you have done.  We have also taken account of the reference which has been handed up which shows that you are capable of earning and working well.

6.        Nevertheless, in our judgment the Crown had originally allowed too much from the starting point by way of mitigation, even though it took no account of your remorse, whereas we do take account of your remorse.  In our judgment the correct aggregate deduction from the starting point is one of 4½ years.  One Jurat therefore would have imposed a sentence of 8 years but the remaining Jurats conclude that the correct aggregate sentence is 7½ years, that is 7½ years on Count 1; 4½ years on Count 2; 4 years on Count 3; 1 week on Count 4; and 1 month on Count 5, all of those to be concurrent.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Brewster -v- AG [2001]JLR312.

Campbell & Ors -v- A.G. [1995]JLR136.

Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. [2001]JLR626.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): paras 43 -47b.

Le Mière and Blackmore -v- A.G. (25^th March, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/68].

A.G. -v- Hartley (20^th January 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/10C].

Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001]JLR373.

Valler -v- A.G. [2002]JLR383.