Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession and supply - Class A

[2021]JRC081

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 March 2021

Before     :

A. J. Olsen, Esq., Lieutenant Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Dulake

The Attorney General

-v-

Adam William Leighton James Ferris

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

1 count of:	Being concerned in supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.(Count 1)
1 count of:	Conspiring to commit a statutory offence contrary to Article 1 (1)(b) of the Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009.(Count 2).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3 and Count 4).

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On 2^nd March, 2020, a police warrant was executed at the defendant's home address.  A total of 108 grams of herbal cannabis (Count 3), ½ tablet of MDMA (Count 4), drug paraphernalia and a total of £2,500 in cash was seized.  In the defendant's bedroom, inside a cupboard was equipment for the cultivation of cannabis, including a grow tent and an extractor fan.  Grow notes were also found.  A large concrete hole had been created between the cupboard and bathroom which was covered up by a space heater.  The defendant admitted in interview he was expecting to receive a cutting and that he intended to grow some cannabis and that he would have given some to the person who gave him the cutting (Count 2).  He also made admissions that he had supplied 200 grams of cannabis (Count 1).

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, co-operative with investigation and genuine remorse.

Previous Convictions:

Previous conviction for importing cannabis in 2012.

Conclusions:

Starting point 18 months' imprisonment.

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment. 

Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £5,387.50.

Confiscation order sought in the sum of £2,668.42. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, drug utensils and growing equipment seized in this case sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 18 months' imprisonment. 

Count 1:	150 hours' Community Service Order, and a 12 month Probation Order.
Count 2:	90 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent
Count 3:	70 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent
Count 4:	No separate penalty.

Total:  150 hours Community Service Order, together with a 12 month Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, drug utensils and growing equipment seized in this case ordered.

Confiscation matters adjourned until 9^th April, 2021. 

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE lieutenant BAILIFF:

1.        In March last year, police officers executed a search warrant at the defendant's home and found drugs, drug paraphernalia and a sizeable amount of cash.  In terms of the weight and quantity of drugs seized, this case involves the smallest by a significant margin that the Court as presently constituted has ever encountered: half a MDMA tablet and about 107.5 grams of herbal cannabis, of which 105.42 grams is described in these terms at page 8 of the expert report of DC Adam Claxton: "It is clear that this is plant waste matter and does not have any monetary value. ... in its current state, it is almost useless to a user."  So the officers seized just over two grams of herbal cannabis and as we have said half an ecstasy tablet. 

2.        The defendant told the officers at interview that he had bought this tablet many years ago and forgotten about it.  He told his Probation Officer that he had not taken ecstasy for years.  These statements appear not to be disputed by the Crown.  The value of the drugs seized is correspondingly low, a total of £50 or £60.  An extremely low value when compared to the values of drugs involved in other cases with which this Court has dealt.

3.        The officers also found cannabis growing equipment in a wardrobe in the defendant's bedroom.  It is clear from the evidence that the defendant had gone to some considerable trouble to instal it, seriously damaging the wall of his Andium Homes flat in the process.  The Crown concedes, however, that it was, "not the most expensive or sophisticated operation."  The defendant claims that the equipment had never been used and that he had not grown any cannabis; he was awaiting a cutting.  The fact that the equipment had not been used was not disputed by the Crown.

4.        The officers found other drugs paraphernalia including scales and a dealing list, which clearly indicated that the defendant was a dealer in cannabis.  Most seriously for him the officers found a total of £2,500 in cash in the flat, most of it wrapped in plastic wallets labelled, "Cannabis Flower".  The defendant admitted to the officers at the time that this did not look good. 

5.        He has pleaded guilty to all counts.  Count 1 is being concerned in the supply of cannabis.  The amount involved is 200 grams over the course of some 11 months.  The characteristically thorough and balanced Social Enquiry Report paints a bleak picture of the defendant's childhood and adolescence.  We note in particular the contents of paragraph 1 and 2.  We are not going to rehearse those paragraphs in open court, but will observe that in consequence of these circumstances and events it was perhaps not a matter of whether Mr Ferris would commit an offence, but when.  And indeed, he has committed offences, the most serious being importation of cannabis when he was 19 for which he received a sentence of 90 hours' Community Service or 3 months' youth detention in default.

6.        Although this offence was committed almost a decade ago, while the defendant fell into the category of a young offender, we must take some account of this serious conviction when assessing the appropriate sentence in this case.  And indeed, it is for that reason that both Crown and counsel for the defendant agree that the starting point should be 18 months.  We also agree.  Mr Ferris has also had three written cautions at St Helier Parish Hall for possession of cannabis, the last of these being some five years ago.

7.        In a compelling address to us Advocate Dale has pointed to very salient mitigating factors in this case, and we take a few that we consider to be the most important.  He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, he was extremely cooperative with the investigating officers; indeed we think that he could hardly have done any more than he did.

8.        In relation to Count 1, it is put to us that he effectively wrote his own Indictment.  Without his admissions there might not have been sufficient evidence to charge him.  He has stopped using cannabis and he is making progress that his Advocate described to us as phenomenal.  We also take into account the letter of remorse, which we think is genuine, and several references which have been put before us.

9.        It is quite clear that cannabis has been front and centre of this defendant's life from a very young age and indeed, we were aware that he started using it at the age of 8, but we were made aware this morning that it was his mother who rolled his first joint for him at that age and gave it to him to smoke.

10.      He has depended on cannabis to alleviate the pain caused by his spina bifida.  We mention this particular factor here because we are not going to follow the Crown's conclusion that the sentence in respect of Count 2 should be imposed consecutively to that passed in respect of Count 1.  We think Advocate Dale is absolutely right.  The prosecution was perfectly entitled to advance such a conclusion and indeed we can see why it has done so.  But we have looked at all the offending charged in this Indictment, with the minor exception of Count 4, as a composite whole and we think it is all about cannabis, it was about dealing in it or maybe one day cultivating it to fund his habit and to supply him.  It was all part and parcel of this man's lifelong commitment to cannabis at that time.  We note that this has changed now but, in our judgment, this was the position of the time of the search and his arrest.

11.      All in all, the circumstances and all the mitigating factors in this case enable us to categorise it as an exceptional one, such that we can depart from the Court's strict sentencing policy in relation to trafficking and production of cannabis on this occasion.

12.      The sentences are as follows:

(i)        Count 1: the starting point is 18 months as I have said - 150 hours' Community Service being the equivalent of 9 months' imprisonment.

(ii)       Count 2: 90 hours' Community Service being the equivalent of 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

(iii)      Count 3: 70 hours' Community Service being the equivalent of 2 months' imprisonment concurrent.

(iv)      Count 4: no separate penalty.

That is a total of 150 hours' Community Service in all. 

13.      We also order a 12 month Probation Order and wish to express the hope that you will take advantages of all the help and support and services that the Probation Service is able to offer you.  The Probation Order will attach to Count 1 of the Indictment.

14.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, utensils and growing equipment.

Authorities

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136

AG v Read [2012] (1) JLR Note 12

AG v Read [2012] JRC 004

AG v Rodrigues [2014] JRC 075

AG v Huish [2014] JRC 194

AG v Thompson [2015] JRC 165

AG v Davies [2015] JRC 039

AG v Botting and Moore [2016] JRC 005

AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 027