Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession with intent to supply - possession - Class A and B.

[2018]JRC002

Royal Court

(Samedi)

5 January 2018

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats Blampied and Pitman.

The Attorney General

-v-

Daryl James Davies

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

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

Age:  53.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

As part of a joint Police and Customs operation officers executed a search warrant at the defendant's home address.  During the search two commercial quantities of cannabis resin (just over two kilos and 700 grams respectively) were seized (Counts 1 and 2), as well as several small personal amounts (totalling 36 grams) collectively dealt with (Count 3).  A very small quantity of cocaine, 12 mgs, was found in his music studio (Count 4) and three MDMA tablets in a van (Count 5).  The defendant was not present when the search commenced but was found in his work van on a building site; on arrest he had a further 2·72 grams of cannabis resin in his possession (Count 6).  A total of almost £30,000 in cash was recovered from a number of locations in the property and a bag in his work van.  Drug expert valuation re Counts 1 & 2 put at £10,400 to £15,600 wholesale, with a street value of £39,000 to £52,000 (slightly erroneous as based on 2·6 kilos).  Attorney General's Statement assessed Davies benefit from drug trafficking at £68,825.92, recoverable amount £47,505.79.

Details of Mitigation:

Cooperative during interview the defendant made admissions as to the bulk cannabis, one bag being 'his' the other that of his 'cannabis club', that the cash seized was connected to the drugs and that he had been selling bars and smaller amounts.  He described a heavy use of cannabis himself.  Immediate guilty pleas.  Good references, excellent work record, stable family life.

Previous Convictions:

Minor, historic, unrelated offences.  Treated as being a man of good character. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 3½ years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

Benefit assessed at £68,825.92.  Confiscation order sought in the sum of £47,505.79 or 1 year's imprisonment in default.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 3½ years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 18 months' imprisonment.

Benefit determined £68,825.92.  Confiscation order made in the sum of £47,505.79 or 1 years' imprisonment in default.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate I. C. Jones for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        As part of a joint police and customs operation, a search was made of your home and in all a total of 2.8 kilograms of cannabis resin was found in different places, and £30,000 or thereabouts in cash.  You have been dealing over quite a considerable period.  The street value of the cannabis is put at between £39,000 and £52,000, the wholesale value between £10,400 and £15,600, and as has clearly been explained to you by your counsel; the Court's policy on these cases is laid down in the Court of Appeal case of AG-v-Campbell [1995] JLR 136.  With cannabis of this amount we look at a bracket of between 2 and 6 years as a starting point and then apply what mitigation there is to that starting point figure and it is reduced.  Your counsel says, we think rightly, that there are no exceptional circumstances and so a custodial sentence is one to be imposed in this case. 

2.        The Crown says that we should take a starting point of 3½ years' imprisonment and we think that is right, that is a combination of the amount of cannabis and the amount of cash which, put together, looks to us as though it is an appropriate assessment of your involvement in drug trafficking which is what the Campbell test requires. 

3.        We then had to look at what is in your favour for mitigation and there is, as your counsel says, a very considerable mitigation indeed.  First of all you entered a very early guilty plea and we give full credit for that.  You have also made full admissions and given assistance in relation to the financial investigation and we think that is important and we give credit for that.  We take into account that you have an extremely good work record and that for all practical purposes you are of good character, there are some other minor things but we treat you as being of good character, and those are substantial pieces of mitigation to put against the starting point.  We also note the references that have been passed up and have read them all and your letter of remorse.  As far as that is concerned and really this is said for your benefit, we take the remorse as being completely genuine but we think it is a pity that it does not seem to extend to the realisation that actually dealing in cannabis is not only illegal but that there is substantial amount of evidence that it causes actual damage to people and we really think you ought to think hard about that in the future. 

4.        Having regard to all the mitigation we think the Crown's conclusions are too high and we are going to reduce them.

5.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 18 months' imprisonment, on Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 18 months' imprisonment. 

6.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized. 

Authorities

AG-v-Campbell [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Davies [2015] JRC 039.

AG-v-Herbert and le Gresley [2012] JRC 192A.

AG-v-Allen [2011] JRC 128.