AG v Croxton and Jenkins [2000] JRC 196 (11 October 2000)

2000/196

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

11^th October, 2000

Before: M.C. St.J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats

de Veulle, Le Ruez, Quérée,

Le Brocq and Georgelin

The Attorney General

-v-

Anthony Edward Croxton

Adrian Jenkins

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 15^th September, 2000, following guilty pleas to the following counts:

Anthony Edward Croxton

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

count 5: cannabis resin.

1 count of: supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

count 6: cannabis resin.

[count 5 not proceeded with].

Age: 33.

Details of Offence:

CROXTON arrived on the Ferry from Weymouth to Jersey. Two days later he went to a pre-arranged meeting at the Tipsy Toad with JENKINS. However, both defendants said they were strangers to each other. The defendants left the pub, CROXTON carrying two holdalls. JENKINS had "borrowed" a car belonging to an acquaintance who had not given him permission to drive it. The defendants travelled to the Weighbridge where CROXTON got out and took a taxi to the airport. JENKINS was followed and stopped in Hastings Road. A black plastic bin liner was found in the passenger footwell containing 14 "nine bars" of cannabis. Total weight of cannabis resin was 3,471.14 grammes - just under 3 ½ kilos. A search warrant at JENKINS' address revealed personal cannabis weighing 3.97 grammes (Count 3). The street value of the 14 nine bars was approximately £20,160.00 (wholesale value £15,120.00). JENKINS was found to be in possession of £1,326.00 in cash in mixed denominations. CROXTON was arrested on the aeroplane whilst waiting to depart for Manchester. In his luggage he carried £10,402.00 in cash largely in Jersey denominations. At first interview CROXTON was uncooperative but at second interview admitted he had come to Jersey to distribute 3 ½ kilos of cannabis already in the Island. He claimed he was to receive £1,200.00 for his involvement. The drugs warrant at JENKINS' home also revealed £2,500.00 in cash and a small amount of personal cannabis. At interview, upon legal advice, JENKINS made "no comment" responses. He admitted however to using cannabis.

Details of Mitigation:

CROXTON pleaded guilty on first presentation in Magistrate's Court. JENKINS reserved his pleas until second appearance, when he pleaded guilty. CROXTON named his supplier in open Court.

Previous Convictions:

5 convictions relating to 7 offences. In 1993 he had been imprisoned for 5 ½ years by the Royal Court for possession with intent to supply cocaine and possession of cannabis.

Conclusions:

Count 6: 3 years' imprisonment. (5 year starting point; less 2 years for mitigation, including naming supplier).

Confiscation Order for £10,402.

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Count 6: 2½ years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order as per conclusions.

Starting point 4 ½ years. Plea of guilty inevitable, but ultimately frank about his involvement, therefore entitled to more credit for guilty plea than JENKINS. Against that, previous conviction for drug trafficking - two factors balance each other out. Key piece of mitigation was naming of supplier in open Court - further reduction of one year.

Adrian Jenkins

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

count 1: cannabis resin;

count 3: 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: cannabis resin.

1 count of: taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended (count 4).

[count 1 not proceeded with].

Age: 39.

Details of Offence: See Croxton Details of Offence.

Details of Mitigation: See Croxton Details of Mitigation.

Previous Convictions:

10 previous convictions comprising 13 offences, 1 relevant offence: being in possession of cannabis in 1997 in respect of which he was fined.

Conclusions:

Count 2: 3 years' imprisonment. (5 year starting point less 2 years for mitigation).

Count 3: £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment, in default of payment;

Count 4: 1 month's imprisonment; 12 months disqualification from driving.

All sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

Confiscation Order for £5,4445.82.

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Count 2: 3 ½ years imprisonment;

Count 3: 1 month's imprisonment;

Count 4: 1 month's imprisonment;12 months disqualification from driving.

All sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

Confiscation Order as per conclusions.

Starting point too high, reduced to 4 ½ years. Crown too generous with discount for mitigation. Very little mitigation, save that he had no previous for drug trafficking. Correct discount 1 year.

Mrs. S. Sharpe Crown Advocate

Advocate N. Benest for A.E. Croxton

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for A. Jenkins

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1. These defendants were both concerned in the chain of supply of 3.47 kilos of cannabis resin. We consider first the starting point. The circumstances of this case fall within band C described in Campbell, Mackenzie & Molloy -v- A.G. (1995) JLR p. 136 CofA., i.e. from 1 to 10 kilos there is a starting point of 2 to 6 years. However, this is not a question of a mathematical progression from the lowest point to the highest point by reference to the weight of drugs. As the Court said in Campbell, Mackenzie & Molloy -v- A.G:

"Much will depend upon the amount and value of the drugs involved, the nature and scale of the activity and, of course, any other factors showing the degree to which the defendant was concerned in drug trafficking."

2. We are satisfied that these defendants each formed an intrical part of the distribution chain and they undertook their activities for financial gain. Nevertheless, we think that the starting point of 5 years suggested by the Crown is too high. We think that the correct starting point is 4 ½ years.

3. We turn next to mitigation. Jenkins entered a guilty plea. However, to be set against that is the fact that this was largely inevitable in the circumstances of the case, and there was also a lack of co-operation on his part when first seen by the police. There is very little other mitigation available to Jenkins save that he has no previous conviction for drug dealing. In our judgment the Crown has allowed too much by way of deduction from the starting point and we conclude that the correct deduction for the available mitigation is 1 year.

4. In the case of Croxton there is also the guilty plea. Again, this was largely inevitable but in his case he made admissions to the police the same day, when he was frank about his involvement, and he entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity before the Magistrate's Court. He is therefore entitled to more credit for the guilty plea than Jenkins. As against that has to be set the fact that he has a previous conviction for drug dealing and we think that these two factors balance each other out in the mitigation available. However, there is one other key piece of mitigation available to Croxton and that is that he has named his supplier and has admitted to doing so in open Court. The Court has repeatedly said that considerable credit will be given for such conduct and we propose to deduct a further year to recognise that.

5. Stand up therefore, please. Jenkins, on count 2 you are sentenced to 3 ½ years' imprisonment; count 3, 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent; count 4, 1 month's imprisonment concurrent, and you are disqualified from driving for 12 months. That is a total of 3 ½ years imprisonment.

6. Croxton, on count 6 you are sentenced to 2 ½ years' imprisonment. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Croxton and Jenkins [2000] JRC 196 (11 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2000/2000_196.html Cite as: [2000] JRC 196

Jersey Unreported Judgments