Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/126

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th July, 2002.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Christian Barry Layton

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 14^th June, 2002, following a guilty plea to:

 

2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: count 1: cannabis. count 2: ecstasy.
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 3: ecstasy.

[The Crown did not proceed with count 2]

 

Age:     33

 

Details of Offence:

Following the execution of a search warrant at his home, a personal amount of cannabis was found together with a white plastic bag containing 945 ecstasy tablets.   After initially denying the drugs were his, he admitted his guilt.   At interview he said he had taken possession of 1,000 ecstasy tablets three weeks earlier with the intention of selling them to pay off his own drugs debts.   He admitted owing his supplier "thousands".   He also admitted poly-drug abuse, including heroin.   Street value of ecstasy was approximately £11,000.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Co-operative at interview and immediate guilty plea.   Disastrous childhood.   Poor record but not serious convictions, and recent gap in offending.   Most committed during youth and were drink related.   Got into drugs/alcohol abuse spiral when young and living in an alcoholic/violent household when those who should have taken care of him did not.   Had been abusing drink and drugs since aged 14 or 15.  Now viewed these years as wasted.

 

Previous Convictions:

Mostly committed as a juvenile involving drink and motor cars.   One previous in 1987 for possession of cannabis which was met with a fine.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment, in default of payment
Count 3:	4 ½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Drugs be forfeited and destroyed.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.   Court observed that Crown had moved for as modest a custodial sentence as possible.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste, for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This accused has pleaded guilty to an indictment including one count of possession of ecstasy with intent to supply.   The amount involved was 945 tablets with a street value of about £11,000.  

2.        Layton originally claimed that he was acting as a minder for the drugs in exchange for a forgiveness of a drug debt but he then admitted that he intended to sell the ecstasy himself. He was, therefore, playing a significant rôle in the drug trafficking process in relation to a class A drug which has caused the deaths of several young people. We have no doubt that a custodial sentence must be imposed.

3.        Applying the guidelines laid down in the case of Bonnar & Anor.-v- A.G. (2001) JLR 626 CofA, we have concluded, in line with the recommendation of the Crown Advocate, that the appropriate starting point having regard to his involvement in his drug trafficking and all the other material circumstances of the case, is one of 8 years'.   In mitigation the Defence Advocate put it to us that he had been co-operative at interview with the police, that he had immediately pleaded guilty to the indictment and to the charge, and that the guilty plea was valuable in the sense that he was not caught in flagrante delicto.  It was put to us that he had a very difficult childhood and early adulthood; that he had a bad - but not a serious - record in the sense that there is no previous conviction for drug trafficking.  Furthermore, there has been a significant gap since his last conviction. The Defence Advocate also put it to us that the accused was genuinely remorseful.    We have taken all those matters fully into account.  

4.        Layton, having regard to your admitted abuse of drugs over many years it is perhaps only good fortune that you have not appeared before the Court today.  We have taken into account all the mitigating factors outlined by the Crown Advocate and, indeed, by your Defence Counsel.  We have also  read carefully the letters which have been placed before us from your family and from your employer.   You are lucky to retain the support of your family and we hope that that will help to keep you away from drugs when you have served the sentence which the Court is about to impose.

5.        We think that the Crown Advocate has moved for as modest a custodial penalty as is possible in all the circumstances.   The conclusions are granted and you are fined on count 1 £100 or one week's imprisonment, and on count 3 you are sentenced to 4 ½ years imprisonment, concurrent with the sentence on count 1, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Bonnar & Anor. -v- A.G. (2001) JLR 626 CofA.