Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC170

Royal Court

(Samedi)

31 August 2011

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton, Morgan, Fisher, Milner and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

Sebastian Joseph Richards

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 17^th June, 2011, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 52 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Failing to provide a specimen, contrary to Article 30(7) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 2).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 3 and 5).

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

During the evening of 12^th March, 2011, the defendant drove his Land Rover Freelander through town in a manner that alarmed members of the public, two of whom made emergency calls to the police, one of who witnessed the vehicle striking a traffic bollard, knocking it from its mountings and throwing it onto the pavement.  Police officers attended at the defendant's address and found him under the influence of intoxicants.  The defendant admitted he had driven the vehicle but could not recall striking the bollard.  He was asked to provide a roadside breath sample but failed to do so, despite three attempts, and was arrested. 

During the detention procedure, 47 ecstasy tablets were found in his jacket pocket.  The defendant refused to provide a breath sample and offered no medical reason or other reasonable excuse for the refusal.  He was examined by an FME who noted he was exhibiting features "consistent with intoxication with a drug or drugs."  The FME reassessed him three hours later and found he had made a rapid recovery, recording it was difficult to think of an alternative explanation for this "other then intoxication with a drug or drugs with or without alcohol."  A search was authorised of the defendant's home address and 917 diazepam 10mg tablets were found.  Street value of the diazepam tablets assessed as £917 and ecstasy £470, wholesale value together of approximately £800. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Plea in relation to ecstasy tablets being on the basis that he would have supplied some to a close circle of friends for no reward and used some himself and in relation to diazepam tablets that he would have supplied some to friends to cover costs and used some himself; accepted by Crown.  Supportive references, expression of remorse and apology.  Single man, split up from long-term girlfriend in 2010, had good job as carpenter/joiner and good accommodation prior to arrest, job still available to him. 

Previous Convictions:

14 convictions for 28 offences, the first in Wales, remaining 27 in Jersey, including possession of ecstasy, reckless or dangerous driving and failing to stop and report an accident.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent, plus disqualification from driving for a period of 2 years from 14th March 2011 and until required test has been passed.
Count 3:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment plus disqualification from driving for a period of 2 years from 14^th March 2011, and until required test has been passed.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent, plus disqualification from driving for a period of 2 years from 14th March 2011.
Count 3:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' imprisonment, plus disqualification from driving for a period of 2 years from 14^th March 2011.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Miss E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        In this case the Court has decided to follow the unusual course of hearing the two sentencing cases, the case of AG-v-McKenzie and the case of AG-v-Richards, at the same time.  This was because similar issues of law and sentencing policy arose in both cases and it was convenient to do so to ensure that all the arguments in relation to those issues could be ventilated and also to ensure that there was no possibility of the Court reaching conflicting decisions on the same afternoon.  It is noted that on occasions this practice has been adopted by the Court of Appeal, indeed in the case of Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626, to which we have been referred so frequently this afternoon.  We wish to make it quite clear that the facts of the two cases have been considered entirely separately; the jurats are well able to do this having regard to their experience and the nature of the duties they are regularly called upon to acquit.  An alternative might have been to appoint Advocate Bell as a amicus curie in the first case and he could then have advanced the same type of arguments, or in theory, even inconsistent arguments a few minutes later in the second case, that seemed to us to be artificial and that is why we have adopted the course that we have.  Issues of law have been ventilated in some detail this afternoon and I propose to deliver the reasons for the Court's decision in relation to those issues at a later date and it will be done as soon as possible. 

2.        In your case you fall to be sentenced on two traffic offences, possession of some ecstasy tablets with intent to supply, and possession of diazepam with intent to supply.  The basis upon which your pleas of guilty have been made has been accepted by the Crown, that is to say, the ecstasy tablets were to be given to a close circle of friends for no reward and in relation to Count 5 the diazepam tablets would have been sold to friends so that you covered the cost of the drug.  That is the basis which the Crown has accepted and that is the basis upon which we sentence you.  Indeed it is for that reason that we would like to say expressly that we do not have regard to the contents of paragraph 9 of the summary of facts which relates to the seizure by the authorities of electronic weighing scales, old mobile phones, a wooden cannabis grinder containing herbal debris, suspect deal lists and cash.  Those would be capable of connoting other forms of criminal conduct that is not consistent with the basis upon which the Crown has accepted your plea, and we therefore have not taken those in any sense at all into account. 

3.        We apply the cases as we think they need to be applied, and for the detailed reasons which will be given shortly, and think that the appropriate starting point in relation to the possession of ecstasy with intent to supply, is 7 years' imprisonment.  The Crown does not move for any Valler uplift and indeed we do not think it is appropriate to apply a Valler uplift either.  We take into account your guilty plea and your cooperative approach with the police; we have certainly taken into account all the references which you have put before us and the conduct which you have shown in prison, indeed generally, we take into account your remorse and your apology and the other matters which your counsel has mentioned. 

4.        Having regard to all those things we sentence you as follows; on Count 1; 1 month's imprisonment, on Count 2; 2 months' imprisonment with a disqualification from driving for 24 months from 14^th March, on Count 3; 3 years' imprisonment, on Count 5; 15 months' imprisonment and all the sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently.  That makes a total of 3 years' imprisonment. 

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

Authorities

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

Bonnar & Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626.

Valler-v-AG [2002] JLR 383.