Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/250

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

15^th December, 2000

 

Before:    Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

                                                      Jurats Le Ruez and Le Breton.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Luis Ricardo da Silva.

 

 

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

                    Count 1:   MDMA.

                 

 

Age:

 

Plea:    guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

Da Silva was searched in Bath Street in November, 1999, and found to have 18 ecstasy tablets in his trouser pocket.  He denied knowing that they were there and denied being a drug user.  Charged with possession and possession with intent to supply.  Pleaded guilty from outset to possession.  Count relating to possession with intent to supply abandoned in November, 2000.  Subsequently admitted to being a drug user.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Plea of guilty.  Length of time awaiting trial and then sentencing.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Two for possessing cannabis, one for obstructing police and two speeding infractions.

 

Conclusions:    9 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:      1 year's Probation Order; 150 hours' Community services.  To attend Alcohol & Drugs Service.

 

 

 

                                          A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

                                     Advocate Mrs S. A. Pearman  for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            In Attorney General -v- Buesnel (22^nd July, 1996) Jersey Unreported, the Superior Number of the Royal Court stated:

 

"In most cases possession of a class A drug, even if the quantity is very small, should attract punishment.  Whether that punishment involves a custodial sentence or the imposition of a fine or Community Service Order will depend upon the particular circumstances of the offence and of the offender.

 

If the quantity of drugs cannot be described as small, or other aggravating factors are present, a custodial sentence should usually be imposed".

 

2.            We well understand why the Crown Advocate should have moved for custody and 9 months' imprisonment would ordinarily have been the appropriate sentence for possession of  18 tablets of ecstasy.

 

3.            After anxious consideration only one factor has persuaded us, on balance, that a non-custodial sentence can be imposed in this case, and that is the delay between arrest and the bringing of this matter to a conclusion.   For nearly a year the accused has been facing the prospect of a trial for possession with intent to supply, which, if made out, would undoubtedly have led to a long prison sentence.

 

4.            At the eleventh hour, and we emphasis that we intend no criticism of the prosecution in this respect, the Crown has accepted a plea to simple possession.   It is true, as submitted by Counsel for the accused, that a dark shadow has been hanging over him for some considerable time.

 

5.            We therefore propose to impose a sentence of Community Service.   Da Silva you will be placed on Probation for a period of  1 year subject to the usual conditions that you be of good behaviour during that time, and that you live and work as directed by your Probation Officer, and subject to a condition that you attend at the Alcohol and Drugs Advisory Service, as you may be directed by the Probation Officer, and subject to a further condition that you perform to the satisfaction of the Community Service Organiser, 150 hours of Community Service.

 

Authorities

 

A.G -v- Buesnel (22^nd July, 1996) Jersey Unreported.