Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC121

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 June 2011

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Milner.

The Attorney General

-v-

Ryan Edward Munro

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

3 counts of:	Obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to Article 19(7)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 1, 2 and 4).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 3 and 6).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 5).

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1

Officers on patrol in Ordinance Yard on New Year's Eve saw the defendant and another man huddled in a corner.  They informed them that they were detained for the purposes of a drugs search.  The defendant ran away and was pursued by the officers.  He was caught outside the Royal Yacht but escaped the officer's grasp.  He was arrested about 3½ hours later in James Street. 

Counts 2, 3 and 4

On 19^th February, 2011, the defendant was detained in the Champions Public House for a drugs search.  He objected to being searched in the pub and so the officer took him outside.  He escaped from the officer and ran towards the Weighbridge.  A doorman from a nearby pub grabbed him as he passed and they fell to the ground.  The officers restrained him and he continued to struggle.  He was subdued and transported to Police Headquarters.  Whilst in the custody suite he placed something in his mouth which he refused to spit out.  An officer held his throat to prevent him from swallowing and he spat the object out.  It was found to contain 18 BZP tablets and tablet material equivalent to a further five. 

Counts 5 and 6

On 11^th March, 2011, the defendant was seen to meet a man near the Colomberie Arcade.  Both men were handcuffed and detained for a drug search.  The defendant shouted "don't say anything" to the other man.  A cursory search was carried out and as a result the defendant was arrested on suspicion of possession and possession with intent to supply.  The defendant gave false information regarding where he had come from.  The officers ascertained that he had come from a nearby flat which was searched and a total of 1,571 BZP tablets were found.  Count 5 relates to 1,570 of the tablets and Count 6 to a single tablet. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Remorse.  Served the equivalent of 5 months on remand and had an offer of employment and accommodation. 

Previous Convictions:

Five convictions for 11 offences, none drug related. 

Conclusions:

Sentenced on the basis that in Count 5 he was a minder. 

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 3:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 4:	5 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 5:	Starting point 3 years.  2 years' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 6:	No separate penalty.

Total:  2 years' and 10 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	Starting point 2 years.  1 year's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 6:	No separate penalty.

Total:  15 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains six counts but, as it were, three parcels of offences.  The first is obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, the second obstructing the police officer and also possession of BZP and the fifth count, which is the most serious, of possession of 1500 BZP tablets with intent to supply. 

2.        The Court has not yet had to deal frequently with charges of possession of Class C drugs with intent to supply but we note that the States have legislated for a maximum sentence of 5 years' imprisonment and we think therefore that, in principle, the offence crosses the custody threshold, in other words the probability is that with offences of this kind the Court will pass a custodial sentence.  In our view this case clearly passes the custody threshold, not just for the amount of BZP tablets involved, but also the number of offences, the fact that there are these three sets of offences. 

3.        I will take Count 5 first because that is the most serious charge.  Given the maximum sentence of 5 years' imprisonment we think an appropriate starting point here would be 2 years rather than the 3 years which the Crown has moved for.  Having regard to all the mitigation which you have had very well advanced by your counsel, we think that the right sentence is 12 months' imprisonment on that Count.  We have certainly given full credit for the guilty plea and then given some extra relief from the starting point for the other mitigating things which can be said and have been said on your behalf.  We do not propose to impose any separate sentence on Count 6 so that couple of offences will result in 12 months' imprisonment.  On the other counts, we think that on Count 1 the sentence of 1 month's imprisonment is correct and we so order.  On Counts 2, 3 and 4 we are reducing slightly the conclusions of the Crown, on Count 2 we sentence you to 2 months' imprisonment, on Count 3; 1 month's imprisonment and on Count 4; 2 months' imprisonment.  Counts 2, 3 and 4 will run concurrently with each other but consecutively to Count 1 and Count 5 runs consecutively to the earlier counts so the result is 1 month on Count 1, an aggregate of 2 months' on Counts 2, 3 and 4, and 12 months' on Count 5, making a total of 15 months' imprisonment. 

4.        We have considered whether or not it would be right to impose a Community Service Order as an alternative but we have rejected that.  We have had regard to all the materials which are in the sentencing bundle including your failure to respond to non-custodial sentences in the past and we think it is right to impose the custodial sentence.  The time which you have served already will be taken into account when you come to be released and it will allow you to draw a line under this offending and start again, and the Court earnestly recommends to you that you take advantage of all the facilities which the prison offers to help you in that start that you need to make again in some months time. 

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

Authorities

AG-v-Mooney and Cunningham [2010] JRC 030.

AG-v-Spinola [2010] JRC 100.