Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/171

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2^nd August 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Simon Paul Humphrys

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 1^st June 2001;

(1) following a guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) 1978: Count 1: MDMA
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 2: MDMA

 

[ The Crown withdrew count 2] and

 

(2) following an admitted breach of a 1 year Probation Order, with 90 hours community service, made by the Royal Court on 27^th July 2000 [see Jersey Unreported Judgment of that date] on guilty pleas to:

 

First Indictment:

1 count of:	Knowing a motor vehicle had been taken and driven away without owner's consent, allowed himself to be carried in it, contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 as amended (Count 67A).
1 count of:	Common Assault (Count 76).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law, 1948, as amended (Count 79).
1 count of:	Failing to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence, contrary to Article 6 (2) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 as amended (Count 80).
1 count of:	Driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 as amended (Count 81).
1 count of:	Failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended (Count 82).

 

Fourth Indictment:

1 count of:	Failing to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence, contrary to Article 6 (2) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended (Count 1).
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle with a defective clutch, contrary to Article 106 (1) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Jersey) Order 1998 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle without a speedometer, Article 106 (1) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Jersey) Order 1998 (Count 4).
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle with a defective clutch, contrary to Article 35(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Jersey) Order 1998 (Count 5).
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle emitting an oily substance, contrary to Article 68(8) (a) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Jersey) Order 1998 (Count 6).
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle with a defective exhaust, contrary to Article 63(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Jersey) Order 1998 (Count 7).
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle with defective tyres, contrary to Article 25 (7) of the  Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Jersey) Order 1998 (Count 8).
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle without obligatory lights, contrary to Article 19(1) Road Traffic Lighting (Jersey) Order 1998 (Count 9)
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle with obscured registration mark, contrary to Article 12(7) of the Motor Vehicle (Registration)(Jersey) Law 1993 (Count 10)
1 count of:	Permitting the use of a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law, 1948, (Count 11).

 

Age:     19

 

Details of Offence:

Humphrys had purchased 150 ecstasy tablets for £1,500 cash on 26^th March, 2001.  On 29^th March, 2001, police recovered 107 ecstasy tablets, a note pad and a piece of paper, both bearing the hallmarks of deal lists from a drawer in a bedside cabinet at the address of Humphrys' then girlfriend (an address that Humphrys frequently stayed at over night).  On arrest and after caution Humphrys admitted the tablets were his, but denied he had supplied or intended to supply any tablets.  Claimed to have consumed 8 tablets on the day that he was interviewed, 10 tablets the previous day and between 40 and 50 tablets in the four days preceding his interview.  The Official Analyst's report could detect no trace of MDMA in a blood sample provided by Humphrys on 29^th March, 2001.  Evidence of police expert was that if Humphrys had consumed the number of tablets that he said he had consumed during the previous four days, he would not be fit for interview (likely to be in a coma).  Humphrys admitted the lists were his but denied that they were deal lists during the question and answer interview.  Maintained pleas of not guilty to possession with intent to supply and to simple possession until he was indicted before the Royal Court on 1^st June, 2001. 

Humphrys was generally on the periphery of offending, but in keeping with his extensive criminal record, showed total contempt for the law and for the Court's Order.  He committed a number of motoring offences and also an unprovoked assault, witnessed by police officers.

 

Breach of Probation

Humphrys also admitted being in breach of terms of a Probation Order imposed by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on 27^th July, 2000 (see Unreported Judgment 2000/152).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Had the advantage of pleas of guilty, but had not shown any remorse.  He had committed further offences whilst on bail and, in the view of the Crown, had shown contempt for the orders of the Court.  Humphrys had a love of motorcycles, but he had disregard for the Road Traffic Law.  It was noted that whilst these offences were waiting to be dealt with, he had re-offended - offences which had been dealt with by the Magistrate's Court and on one occasion resulted in a custodial sentence being passed. It was to be noted that Humphrys was not involved in the major offending committed by Mahé and Samson and thus whilst his offending was serious in the context of his own record, it was on the periphery in relation to the other co-accused.  It was suggested that Humphrys was attempting to change his lifestyle and was coming to terms with the responsibility of being a father.  It was suggested that, in all  the circumstances, other options were available for dealing with Humphrys, other than custodial, as sought by the Crown.   

 

Previous Convictions:

An appalling record of previous convictions beginning when he was age 14.  However, only one previous conviction for a drugs offence when he was 16 years old; possession of cannabis resin with intent to supply - placed on probation with 20 hours community service.  Humphrys had received all forms of disposal available to the Court including Probation Orders, Binding Over Orders, fines and periods of youth detention.   Report from the Director of the Alcohol and Drugs Service noted the danger of Humphrys becoming institutionalised and recommended that consideration be given to Humphrys receiving psychological counselling and support within a specialist residential drug rehabilitation centre in the United Kingdom.  

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

4 years' Youth Detention.

 

Breach of Probation Order:

 

6 months' Youth Detention, consecutive.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1: Conclusions granted.

Breach of Probation Order:

6 months' Youth Detention, consecutive., on those offences carrying imprisonment as an optional penalty, and on the remainder, a fine of £25, or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.

 

P. Matthews, Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.J. Chapman for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        We regard trafficking in class A drugs as being so serious that, notwithstanding your age, a non custodial sentence cannot be justified.  For that reason and because you seem to be unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties, as evidenced by your failure to comply with Probation Orders, we must impose a sentence of Youth Detention.  You have an appalling record for a youth of your age.  When you appeared before the Court last year the Court gave you a chance by placing you on probation and by ordering you to do community service.  You spurned that chance and are now back in Court, having pleaded guilty to these very serious offences.

2.        As I say, the Court must impose a sentence of Youth Detention and I have also to explain to you that you may be subject to a period of supervision under Article 10 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 when you have served your sentence. We are glad to note that you are taking advantage of the educational facilities in prison and also that you have the support of your father and we hope that both these factors will help you to make something of your life when you have served your sentence for these offences.

3.        We have taken account of all the mitigating factors, including your guilty plea and the other matters mentioned very fully and ably by your counsel but we think all these things have been taken into account by the Crown Advocate.  The conclusions are accordingly granted and on Count 1 of the indictment you are sentenced to four years' Youth Detention and on the different counts on the two indictments for which you were placed on probation you will be sentenced to Youth Detention for six months on those offences carrying imprisonment as an optional penalty, and on the remainder you will be fined £25, or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, concurrent, making a total of six months' Youth Detention, which will be served consecutively to the sentence on this indictment making a total of 4 years' and six months' Youth Detention.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

 

Authorities

AG-v-Cousins (22^nd February 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/45].

Campbell & Ors-v-AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

AG-v-Dowbiggin & Glover (21^st December 1995) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Mason (22^nd March 1996) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-McMinn (2^nd March 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/38]

AG-v-Casey (6^th February 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/33]