1998/23 - Dwyer v AG [1998] UR 23 (5 February 1998)

Application for leave to appeal against a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment, imposed by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on 21 November 1997 [1997.209], on a guilty plea to:

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

count 3: cannabis resin, on which count sentence of 1 months imprisonment was passed.

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

count 4: cannabis resin, on which count sentence of 4 years imprisonment, concurrent was passed.

1 count of supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

count 5: cannabis resin, on which count sentence of 4 years imprisonment, concurrent was passed.

1 count of being concerned in supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

count 6: . cannabis resin, on which count sentence of 4 years imprisonment, concurrent was passed.

Leave to appeal was refused by the Deputy Bailiff on 8 December 1997; the application was renewed to the plenary Court, under Article 39 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, on 10 December 1997.

(Co-accused, Dean Cameron, pleaded guilty to 1 count of possession of a controlled drug (cannabis resin) with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, (Count 1), and to 1 count of possession of a controlled drug (cannabis resin), contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, (Count 2), and was sentenced to a total of 3½ years imprisonment. There has been no appeal.]

(Co-accused, Thomas William Panton, pleaded guilty to 1 count of possession of a controlled drug (cannabis resin) with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, (Count 7), and was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. There has been no appeal.]

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence by James Dwyer who appears on four counts of an indictment which charge him with possession of cannabis, possession of cannabis with intent to supply, supplying cannabis and being concerned in supplying cannabis. The supplying counts earned him a sentence of four years concurrent and he appeals on the grounds that his sentence of four years imprisonment was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. Leave to appeal was refused by the Deputy Bailiff on 8 December of last year. He was sentenced on 21 November on a plea of guilty to all four counts.

The facts of the case, insofar as they concern the Applicant are these: on 21 April 1997, premises in Pierson Road were placed under observation. As a result a man called Cameron was followed and arrested carrying a large quantity of cannabis resin. Later the Applicant was seen to leave these premises carrying a carrier bag. He was followed; he walked a little way through the town where he met a man called Panton; he handed the bag to Panton; they walked a little way together and then split up. Panten and another man, later eliminated from the enquiry, were arrested. A search of the Applicants property in Pierson Road revealed a small lump of cannabis resin on the kitchen table which belonged to him. In the garage, however, a rucksack was found similar to the one that an unknown male had been seen bringing to the house earlier. Dwyer occupied the flat and the garage.

At first Dwyer denied all knowledge of the drugs but later finger print evidence connected him quite positively with the cannabis in Camerons possession and with the plastic bag that he had handed to Panton and he changed his plea. The drugs found in the garage occupied by Dwyer had a street value of £19,814,and those found in Pantons possession had a street value of £8,409.60. There was therefore a very substantial quantity of drugs representing wholesale trafficking on a substantial commercial basis.

The Crown submitted that the unidentified man had come to Dwyers premises with a rucksack containing all the cannabis; it had then been split into three; Cameron had taken one stash; Dwyer had delivered one stash to Panton; and the third had remained in the garage.

Miss Fitz has placed before us all the arguments that were rehearsed in the Court below and, of course - as one would expect from Miss Fitz - she has said everything that she could on behalf of her client.

In Campbell, Molloy, and MacKenzie -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 C. of A, the Court of Appeal said:

There is, as there always will be in such a case, a conflict of what was intended. Mrs Sharpe, before us, repeated the arguments that here was a man who provided a safe house; who helped in the distribution very shortly after the delivery to his safe house of this large quantity of dangerous drugs; and who was caught shortly thereafter.

Miss Fitz argues that he acted only through fear and that he was duped. She said that he was assisted by his clean record and by his references and, looking at those, he was clearly a kindly man. We have to say that the case of Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie draws no distinction between importation and possession with intent to supply.

As Crown Advocate Sharpe reminds us we must look to see whether this Court feels that the four years imposed is safe and satisfactory and not manifestly excessive. Now, on that basis we have no hesitation in saying that we are completely confident that the four years is a correct sentence to be imposed and on that basis we refuse leave to appeal.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/23 - Dwyer v AG [1998] UR 23 (5 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/23.html Cite as: [1998] UR 23

Jersey Unreported Judgments