Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC097

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th May 2007

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Tibbo, Le Cornu, Morgan, Newcombe and Georgelin.

The Attorney General

-v-

Richard William John Doyle

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

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 1 and 6).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Counts 2 and 7).
4 counts of:	Supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Counts 3, 4, 5 and 8).

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Friday 22^nd December, 2006, police officers executed a search warrant at Doyle's home address and found, located in Doyle's bedroom:

a. a small metal tin containing a total of 81.3g of white powder subsequently confirmed to be 16% cocaine;

b. 36 separate small clear bags containing a further 24.3g of white powder, subsequently confirmed to be 14% cocaine;

c. 2 further plastic bags containing a total of 462 tablets bearing a "shark" motif, subsequently confirmed to contain MDMA (ecstasy);

d. £625 in cash; and

e. 2 lists that appeared to be drug "deal" lists;

f. items used in the supply of illegal drugs, namely bags and digital scales with powder traces.

Doyle was arrested later that day.  In interview under caution he made extensive admissions that:-

a.  The drugs found in the flat related solely to him.

b.  The cocaine in the tin and in the bags (together forming the basis of Count 1) had been received by him a few days earlier from two unnamed men from Bristol and his reward for 'minding' the cocaine was the retention of approximately 28g for his own use which he had then proceeded to cut up into 46 bags.

c.  Prior to his arrest he had supplied two wraps of the cocaine to unnamed associates and shared one with his flat mate (the subject of Count 5) and he consumed the rest.

d.  In December 2005 he supplied seven 1gram bags of cocaine to unnamed associates (Count 3).

e.  In September 2006 he supplied seven 1 gram bags of cocaine to his flat mate (Count 4).

f.  In relation to the 462 ecstasy tablets found in his possession (Count 6), he had bought 600 tablets approximately 4 months earlier for £6 each, and that between June 2006 and December 2006 he had then supplied at total of 138 ecstasy tablets to unnamed associates charging £7 or £8 a tablet and supplying 2 or 3 tablets per person (Count 8).

Details of Mitigation:

A difficult family background.  Residual youth.  Previous good character.  Letter of remorse and many positive references placed before the Court.  Extensive admissions in interview, fully cooperative with the police and guilty pleas entered at the earliest opportunity.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 13 years' imprisonment)
Count 2:	Fell away.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 6:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1. (Starting point 8 years)
Count 7:	Fell away.
Count 8.	9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1 and 3 but concurrent to all other counts.
Total:	9 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order £679.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	5½ years' imprisonment.  (Starting Point 11 years).
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  (Starting point 8 years)
Count 8	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Total:	5½ years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order £679.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered.

The Court considered applying Valler v AG [2002]  JLR 383, that despite the extensive period of time over which the Defendant supplied the drugs, Count 1 should reflect the overall offending covered by all Counts, with all other sentences to run concurrently.  This would avoid a disproportionate overall sentence and what would otherwise be disproportionately low sentences on the supply Counts.

B. H. Lacey, Crown Advocate.

Advocate H. J. Heath for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You have a cocaine habit which has led you into the world of drug dealing.  You agreed to look after just over 100 grams of cocaine.  105 were in your possession when you were arrested and you admitted having supplied 3 grams to two other persons and to your flat mate.

2.        You also admitted to having supplied about 7 grams of cocaine to others in December 2005 and about a gram to your flat mate in September 2006, but you tell us that that was not for any financial reward, although, in relation to the 7 grams, you were rewarded by an extra gram for yourself that you could keep.

3.        At the same time as the cocaine was found, 462 ecstasy tablets were in your possession.  You yourself no longer take ecstasy and you intended to sell these and indeed had already sold 138 tablets, having originally purchased 600 tablets. 

4.        We must consider first the starting point and the Crown say that we should take 13 years' imprisonment.  We propose to take the normal approach and not that which the Crown has taken on this occasion of trying to construct consecutive sentences.

5.        All in all you have been concerned with approximately 115 grams of cocaine spread over some three occasions.  Rimmer Lusk and Bade v AG [2001] JLR 373 lays down 10 to 13 years' imprisonment starting points for between 100 and 250 grams.  Having taken account of what your counsel has said and having regard to the nature and scale of your involvement we think a starting point of 10 years for the cocaine offences is correct and we do that in the usual way by applying that to the most serious offence.

6.        You were also concerned in the possession and supply of 600 ecstasy tablets.  According to Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626 the starting point is 8 - 10 years for between 500 and 1,000 tablets.  For the same reasons we think the starting point here would have been 8 years, but we must consider, in the light of Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383 whether to increase the starting point for the cocaine offences to take account of the fact that you were also dealing in ecstasy.  We think an additional 1 year is correct to reflect that, therefore the overall starting point for the most serious offence is 11 years and as I say we propose to deal with all other offences concurrently rather than trying to deal with some of them consecutively and passing disproportionately small sentences as a result.

7.        Your counsel has spoken strongly in mitigation on your behalf.  She has emphasised your immediate guilty plea and your cooperation with the Police at the time.  We entirely accept that a full discount of one third is appropriate.  We also take into account the limited assistance you gave in trying to identify your suppliers and other details you gave.  We note that you have got no previous convictions, this despite a very difficult background and that stands to your credit.  You also wrote your own indictment in relation to Count 3, 4, 5 and 8.  You have made real efforts to make your way in life and we have read with interest the testimonials and references and personal references which are before us, and they show that there is a very good side to your character.  You are clearly remorseful.  We note you are determined to steer clear of cocaine in the future and we hope very much you will keep to that and put this one incident behind you and resume the course that you had set prior to it.

8.        Nevertheless these are serious offences and a prison sentence is inevitable as your counsel has accepted.  We do however think that the conclusions of the Crown are too high by quite a considerable measure. 

9.        In the circumstances our overall conclusions are as follows.  On Count 1, which is the most serious offence and on which we have taken a starting point of 11 years, the sentence is 5½ years, on Count 3; 3 years, on Count 4; 2½ years, on Count 5; 3 years, on Count 6, which is the ecstasy offence having taken a starting point of 8 years, the sentence is 4 years, and on Count 8; 3½ years.  All of those to be concurrent which makes a total of 5½ years' imprisonment.

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

Authorities

Rimmer Lusk and Bade v AG [2001] JLR 373.

Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626.

Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383.