Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC019

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th February 2008

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Brocq and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

David Jonathan Harris

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to:

1 count of:

Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.

Age:  38

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Harris, who was employed as a doorman at a nightclub, was observed by Police Officers passing something to another male outside the nightclub premises and that this male in return passed something to Harris.  A short while later the other individual was arrested and found to be in possession of 1 gram of cocaine (street value £80).  Harris was arrested and found to be in possession of approximately £85.  During interview he admitted that during the course of his duties as a nightclub doorman, he had found the wrap on the floor and instead of handing it to the head doorman he had mentioned it to an acquaintance who had agreed to buy it from him.  The acquaintance had paid £80 for it.  He admitted that he had acted stupidly.

The Crown's approach to sentencing was to look at matter in the round.  The Crown's view was that to apply the "starting point" guidelines would lead to an artificial result.  The case was to be treated as exceptional on its own facts.  There was no evidence to suggest that Harris had been involved in any other drug dealing.  It was a one off offence and he was to be sentenced on the basis of his factual account of how he had found the wrap of cocaine.

Details of Mitigation:

The supply had been witnessed by police officers.  Harris made admissions in interview and had pleaded guilty on the fist occasion before the Magistrate's Court.  He was a first drug offender.  He had lost his employment as a doorman in consequence of the offence.  He had expressed remorse and was considered to be at low risk of re-offending.

The Defence contended that his guilty plea was of worth as the associate had denied purchasing the cocaine found in his possession from Harris and without Harris' admissions it might have been difficulty for the Prosecution to prove its case against him.  He was not a professional dealer in drugs.  He had expressed remorse and had written a letter of apology to the Court.  A number of character references were provided including a letter offering him employment in the UK.  The Defence maintained that it was an exceptional case.

Previous Convictions:

One offence of embezzlement.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

120 hours' Community Service Order or 6 months' imprisonment in default.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

This was a very unusual case.  The Prosecution accept that the defendant, whilst employed at a nightclub, found a wrap of cocaine and instead of handing it in he mentioned it to an associate who offered to purchase it and did so for the sum of £80.  There was no evidence to suggest that Harris had any prior involvement in drug trafficking.  He had lost his job as a doorman and his doorman's license which he had held for 20 years.  The Magistrate had dealt with the person who had simple possession of the cocaine.  The Crown does not approach sentencing by way of the "starting points" as it contended that this would be artificial.  It is the intention of the defendant to leave the Island and he has work to undertake in Essex where he will be able to undertake Community Service Orders if imposed.  The Defence contended that he had written his own indictment as without his admissions it would have been difficult for the Prosecution to provide the case against him.  His plea was, therefore, of value.  He had provided strong character references.  His mother was in court.  In consequence of a previous offence he was in a serious financial situation.  He has no alcohol or drug problems.  The Court was satisfied that Harris was no involved in drug trafficking apart from on this one occasion.  The Court would, therefore, grant the Crown's Conclusions.

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This is a very unusual case in that the prosecution accept that the defendant, who worked as a doorman at the La Cala Nightclub, found, on a routine inspection, a wrap of cocaine lying on a step.  It is apparently not unusual to find such items during inspections and routinely they are handed in.  He picked it up with the intention of handing it in.  However, he happened to meet someone he knew and he mentioned in passing what he had found and the other man said he was interested in purchasing it.  He returned later and gave him £80.

2.        The police observed the transaction and the Defendant was arrested.  Nothing was found at his home and it is accepted that he has no prior involvement in illegal drugs.  He has serious financial problems and he has expressed deep remorse.  He has also of course lost his job as a doorman and indeed his licence to act as a doorman, something he has done for the last 21 years.

3.        The Magistrate accepted jurisdiction to deal with the person who purchased the cocaine, who was sentenced to 50 hours' Community Service, which was equivalent of 1 month's imprisonment.  The Crown expressed the view that it was regretable that the Magistrate did not feel able to deal with this defendant. 

4.        The Crown proposed that we should not approach this matter from an assessment of the starting point guidelines which it says would be artificial.  The defendant has expressed the intention to leave the Island and work in Essex and the Crown have moved for a sentence of community service of 120 hours which would be completed in Essex. 

5.        Mrs Pearmain has addressed us on the mitigation.  The defendant has in effect written his own indictment.  The man who purchased the cocaine denied the defendant's involvement and we therefore accept that it may well have been difficult for the Crown to have proved the case against this defendant.  Therefore the plea was of value to the Crown. 

6.        We have received very strong references in support from the defendant's partner, former wife, mother and many others.  Indeed his mother has come over specially to be at this case.  The defendant is in a very serious financial position and indeed the payments which he can afford of £25 a week towards his creditors do not even meet the interest that is accruing.  He has no alcohol and drug problems.  We are informed, and we are satisfied that, he has had no involvement in the drug trade at all apart from this one incident, and he has, of course, co-operated with the authorities.

7.        Accordingly, we grant the conclusions of the Crown.  You are sentenced to serve 120 hours' community service which is equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment. 

8.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

No Authorities