Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/38

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2^nd March, 2000

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats

                                                                  Le Ruez, Quérée, Le Brocq, Bullen,

Le Breton, Georgelin and Allo

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Harold John McMinn

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number after entering, on 17^th December, 1999, a not guilty plea to count 1 of the first indictment set out below and guilty pleas to counts 2 and 3 thereof, and a not guilty plea to the count set out in the second indictment; and following a change of plea to guilty on 27^th January, 2000, to count 1 of the first indictment and on 2^nd March, 2000, to the count set out in the second indictment:

 

First Indictment:

 

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 1: MDMA.

 

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

                    count 2: MDMA;

                    count 3: cannabis resin.

 

Second Indictment:

 

1 count of:   receiving/hiding/withholding stolen property.

 

Age:  40.

 

Details of Offences:

 

An eye witness identified a van which had stopped and picked up a suspected perpetrator of a breaking and entry and the van was subsequently located and the accused arrested when he entered the vehicle.  A search was then undertaken at his home address and a gold charm bracelet was located which was subsequently identified as being stolen from a property during a breaking and entry committed by the same perpetrators.  The search also revealed 93 complete and three partially complete ecstasy tablets and a personal amount of cannabis resin (2.93g).  McMinn stated that the man he had picked up at the location where a breaking and entry had occurred, gave him the gold charm bracelet but that he was unaware that the bracelet had been stolen and he had been asked to value it.  The ecstasy tablets belonged to him and were for his personal use and he admitted that he was a regular ecstasy user.  He also admitted using cannabis.  He denied that the ecstasy was for supply and he gave various versions of events as to the price that he paid for the tablets and the circumstances in which they came into his possession.  Pleas of not guilty were entered to the counts of possession with intent to supply and also receiving the stolen bracelet.  Pleas were changed at a late stage and insofar as concerns the possession with intent to supply, this changed two days before trial.  Total street value of drugs was £1,417.50 for the ecstasy tablets and £16 for the cannabis resin.  The Crown took a starting point of 8 years.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The defence contended that an appropriate starting point was 7 years and this in strict accordance with the guidelines in Campbell -v- AG.  Guilty pleas, albeit late in the day.  No previous drug convictions and previous record consisted of minor offences and had never served a sentence of imprisonment.  Numerous medical and psychological reports were placed before the Court confirmed the physical and psychological problems that McMinn had suffered from an early age and from which he continued to suffer.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Four previous convictions for public order and motoring offences and historical offences for dishonesty.  No previous for drug offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

First Indictment:

 

count 1: 6 years' imprisonment;

count 2: to remain on file;

count 3: 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Second Indictment:

 

count 1:       1 year's imprisonment, consecutive to sentences passed on first indictment.

 

TOTAL:      7 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

First Indictment:

 

count 1:       5 years' imprisonment;

count 2:       to remain on file;

count 3:       1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Second Indictment:

 

count 1:       6 months' imprisonment, concurrent with sentences passed on first indictment.

 

TOTAL:      5 years' imprisonment.

 

McMinn pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply 96 tablets of ecstasy and the Court re-affirmed its policy that in cases involving commercial trafficking of Class A drugs then a custodial sentence was inevitable.  The Court gave careful consideration to the starting point.  Having regard to the degree and extent of McMinn's involvement reduced the starting point to one of 7 years.  The Court noted that the guilty plea was very late in the day and therefore deserving of little credit.  The two year deduction moved for by the Crown by way of mitigation was in the Court's view the proper and correct deduction to be made having regard to the background of the accused and in particular his medical and psychological difficulties.  On the second indictment the Court accepted the defence submission that a 12 month custodial sentence was on the high side and therefore substituted a sentence of 6 months but having regard to the totality principle made that sentence concurrent rather than consecutive.

 

 

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

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:  This accused has pleaded guilty to the possession, with intent to supply, of 96 tablets of ecstasy and having regard to the Court's policy in relation to the commercial trafficking of Class A drugs, a custodial sentence is inevitable.

 

We have given careful consideration to the proper starting point in this case and have concluded that, having regard to the degree and extent of McMinn's involvement in drug trafficking, the proper starting point is one of seven years.

 

We note that the guilty plea came very late in the day and little credit can be given to McMinn in that respect.  The Crown Advocate has allowed two years for the mitigating factors and the Court has assumed that the Crown has given full weight to the exceptionally deprived family background of the accused which has led in turn to medical and psychological difficulties which we need not describe.  We accept that the deduction made by the Crown is proper and appropriate.

 

We next consider whether the count of receiving on the second indictment should attract a consecutive sentence and indeed whether the 12 months' imprisonment moved for by the Crown Advocate is correct.  We accept the submissions of the defence counsel that 12 months is too high and we propose to substitute a figure of six months' imprisonment.  We will apply the totality factor and will make that sentence concurrent with the sentence moved for on the first indictment.

 

McMinn, stand up, please.  On the first indictment, the Court sentences you, on count 1, to 5 years' imprisonment; on count 2, this will remain on file; on count 3, you are sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.  On the second indictment, you are sentenced, on count 1, to 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent with sentences passed on first indictment, making a total of 5 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

AG -v- Dowbiggin & Glover (21^st December, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Terry (4^th February, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Chevalier & 4 ors. (22^nd January, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

Thomas: Principles of Sentencing: pp.52-61.

 

AG -v- Bevis & Bateman (8^th May, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Gilmour (14^th June, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

 

Whelan:  Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp.75-76.