Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/7

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

20^th January, 2000

 

Before:    F.C. Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

                                                      Jurats Myles, Rumfitt, Potter, Quérée,

                                                       Le Brocq, Tibbo, Bullen, Le Breton, and Allo.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

James Stuart Edingborough

 

 

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number, following guilty pleas, entered on 26^th November, 1999, to the following counts:

 

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

                  Count 1:  MDMA

                  Count 4:  Cannabis resin

 

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 2:  MDMA

 

2 counts of   supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

                  Count 3:  Cannabis resin

                  Count 5:  MDMA

 

Age:   20.

 

Plea:  Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

Following a drugs warrant search, defendant was found in possession of crushed ecstasy street value £90 (count 1).  Possession of 232 ecstasy tablets street value £3,480 (count 2), and cannabis weighing 61.49grams, value £346 (count 4).  During his interview with police he admitted previous supplying of cannabis (count 3) but gave no estimate regarding quantity or value.  He also admitted previous supply of ecstasy ( count 5) of between 2,600 and 5,200, ecstasy street value £39,000 to £78,000.  Prosecution sentenced on the basis of the mid point value, that is 3,900 ecstasy's, at a street value of £58,000

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Youth - aged 20 but aged 19 at time of arrest.  May have suffered from a personality disorder as identified by Bill Saunders.  Has been at Les Chenes and then between ages 16 and 18 left to fend for himself sleeping in bus shelters, parks, etc.  First drugs offence and first time in Court.  One previous for minor motoring offence.  Had been injured at work and received £4,500 in compensation which had been paid into a bank account by his father and he was unable to touch.  His experience of work was not to his liking and he remained unemployed,  dealing in drugs to pay his rent, food, and to fund his cannabis habit.  Total co-operation with police.  Exculpated his two girlfriends at earliest opportunity.

 

Previous Convictions:     Driving without a licence or insurance, fined £75 and £200 respectively in May, 1998.

 

 

Conclusions:               Count 1:                             6 month's imprisonment.

                      Count 2:   4 years', 4 month's imprisonment.

                      Count 3:   3 month's imprisonment.

                      Count 4:   1 month's imprisonment.

                      Count 5:   4 years', 8months' imprisonment.

                      All concurrent.

TOTAL:  4 years' 8 month's imprisonment; unopposed £200 confiscation order granted.

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:   6 month's imprisonment

Count 2:   3 years', 8 month's imprisonment

Count 3:   3 month's imprisonment

Count 4:   1 month's imprisonment

Count 5:   4 years' imprisonment

All concurrent.

TOTAL:   4 years' imprisonment.

 

Court commented that it could not for one moment accept Mr. Saunders' statement that he doubted whether many people exposed to the same circumstances would not have been tempted to do likewise, i.e. sell Class A drugs.  Court  observed it was a fearsomely cynical attitude to which the Court did not subscribe.  Offence so serious it could not be dealt with by way of a non-custodial.  Warned defendant that he could have killed people to whom he supplied ecstasy, but taking his youth, background, and assistance to police into account, and wrote own indictment re Count 5, reduced conclusions slightly.  Court observed that had he named his supplier the Court would have reduced further

 

 

 

                                              Mrs Sally Sharpe,  Crown Advocate

                                     Advocate Mrs S. A. Pearmain for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:  The facts as outlined by Crown Advocate Sharpe were very detailed.  When forced entry was made under a warrant on 19^th July, at Flat 4. Aera House, Saville Street,  drugs and drug paraphernalia with £160 in cash were found, and drugs were also later found in a motor car outside the property.

 

232 ecstasy tablets found in the defendant's possession had a street value of some £3,480, together with some crushed ecstasy tablets worth some £90, 61.49grams of cannabis, and pieces of paper.  Although no comment has been made by the defendant the pieces of paper were clearly dealing lists.

 

Although he has not named his supplier, the defendant has admitted to being a substantial dealer in ecstasy.  We were told that he sold ecstasy over a 12 month period with a street value of between £39,000 and £78,000.   Whatever the level at which we take the dealing, it is a very high commercial dealing.

 

The co-operation with the police is not equivalent to a man's surrendering to the police or to someone naming his supplier, but it is significant, and in our view rightly deserves to be counted in mitigation in addition to the plea of guilty.  As I have said, the pieces of paper found in his possession, bearing partial names or initials, and figures and crossed out figures, bear the clear hallmark of dealing lists.

 

Edingborough has sold ecstasy primarily to pay for his rent, living expenses, and his cannabis habit.  As Mrs Pearmain has pointed out he has only a minor motoring offence, and this is his first appearance in the Royal Court.

 

In passing we would say this: we cannot for one moment accept Mr Saunders statement that he doubts if many people exposed to the same circumstances would not be tempted to do likewise.  That in our view, is a fearsomely cynical attitude to human nature to which this Court does not subscribe.

 

I have to tell you, in accordance with the law, that your offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  You may be aware that you could have killed people to whom you supplied these deadly drugs.   But because of your youth, your exoneration of your girlfriends, and your assistance to the police, and in the hope that you may at least have learned something from your experience, we are going to reduce the conclusions of the Crown very slightly.  I have also to tell you this, had you named your supplier we would have taken a much more lenient view.  

 

On count 1, you are sentenced to 6 month's Youth Detention; on count 2, to 3 years'  8 months' Youth Detention; on count 3, to 3 months' Youth Detention; on count 4, to 1 month's Youth Detention; on count 5, to 4 years' Youth Detention, all concurrent.  That makes a total of 4 years' Youth Detention, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.    

 

Authorities

 

Wood -v- A.G. (15^th February, 1994) Jersey Unreported CofA.

Attorney General -v- Doyle (8^th March, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

Attorney General -v- Melville  (20^th September, 1996) Jersey Unreported .

Attorney General -v- Burke (24^th January, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

Campbell, Molloy, and MacKenzie -v- Attorney General (1995) JLR 136 CofA