BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Le Cocq [2001] JRC 192 (07 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_192.html Cite as: [2001] JRC 192 |
[New search] [Help]
2001/192
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
7th September 2001
Before: |
F.C. Hamon, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Myles and de Veulle. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Darren Maurice Le Cocq
First Indictment
2 counts of: |
Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 1: heroin; Count 2: heroin. |
Second Indictment
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 1: heroin. |
Plea: Guilty.
Conclusions:
First Indictment
Count 1: |
2 years' imprisonment; |
Count 2: |
2 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Second Indictment
Count 1: |
6 months' imprisonment, consecutive |
TOTAL: |
2½ years' imprisonment. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. We are dealing here with two counts of supplying heroin and one of possessing heroin. The background is a tragic one. Lisa Patricia Huet died on 28th April, 2001, aged 31. Her death could not be attributed to the heroin supplied to her by the defendant but there is no doubt that heroin was given to her intravenously and that that heroin injection was prepared by Le Cocq. Tragically she left three children aged 11, 9 and 7, who are now in care: her partner died in similar circumstances in June of last year. A more tragic background could not be imagined.
2. It was as a result of her death that a search of Le Cocq's flat under warrant led to the recovery of the 4 grams of heroin. Le Cocq had been released on bail by the Magistrate's Court and was released on a warning by the Inferior Number. The heroin was found in his flat two days after that latter event.
3. We agree with the Crown Advocate that he has an appalling record but there is no relevant conviction for drug offences and he is only 33. The heroin found in Le Cocq's flat was in four heat sealed plastic wraps which totalled 4.06 grams of heroin containing 25% by weight diamorphine and some syringes were also found. That heroin had a street value of between £1,280 and £1,827 and the defendant had purchased four grams the previous day for some £800 but we are not certain how that money was obtained.
4. For the heroin which he had supplied he had received £100 in cash from Mrs. Huet and that had been supplied at the flat. However, this cannot be described as commercial trafficking and the guidelines in Campbell do not apply to this case.
5. The learned Crown Advocate referred us to two cases Morgan and Schlandt-v-AG (24th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/88] and AG-v-Monteiro (27th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/90] and they are helpful up to a point. Although there was a profit in this case it was a small profit, indeed, and there is much mitigation. This includes his admissions and his co-operation which led to the guilty plea. This is his first relevant conviction for drug offences. The amount of drugs supplied was small and that found in his possession was of low strength. We must remember that he is a heroin addict with a dreadful problem. He has shown remorse - and we accept what Miss Fogarty has told us - as far as he is able but he is a schizophrenic and because of that we know that he did benefit from his three years in Broadmoor and his offences since then have been much reduced. Looking at the picture overall we have no argument with the conclusions of the Crown who set a starting point of six years.
6. Stand up, please, Le Cocq. You are sentenced to two years' imprisonment on count 1 and two years' imprisonment, concurrent, on count 2 of the first indictment; you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive, on count 1 of the second indictment, making a total of 2½ years' imprisonment.