Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/63

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

15^th March, 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Matthew Ryland Campbell Lakeman

 

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: ecstasy

 

[On 8^th February, 2002, the Court ordered that count 1 should remain on court file and today the Crown withdrew the count.]

 

Age:     19.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Police officers conducted a search of the defendant's home.  A plastic bag was discovered containing 100 whole and 6 half tablets of ecstasy the street value of which was between £1,176 and £1,470.  When originally questioned the defendant stated he did not know that the tablets were at his home.   The defendant later admitted that he had found them in a cupboard and was looking after them for someone else but refused to name that person.

 

Details of Mitigation:

This was not trafficking in the true sense.  The defendant was not a classic minder but a 'finder' rather than a minder; was reasonably co-operative; had no previous prison record, nor had he been placed on probation; he had a supportive family; the support of the Jersey addiction group; the drugs and alcohol service had suggested a treatment order; his counsel asked the Court to take a constructive approach; the sentence should reflect his involvement; and there were exceptional circumstances.

 

Conclusions:

There were no exceptional circumstances; the defendant had received no benefit from drugs awareness course and had not remained drug free; the offence was such that a non-custodial sentence could not be justified.  Bonnar & Noon and Campbell guidelines were not applicable as the defendant did not expect to profit or benefit from minding the drugs.  The Crown took a starting point of five years.  After taking into account the defendant's guilty plea, his youth and other mitigating factors the Crown moved for a sentence of 2 years' and 6 months' youth detention.  The drugs were to be forfeited and destroyed.

 

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Crown accepted that Campbell guidelines were not appropriate because this was not a case of commercial trafficking.  The Court regarded this case to be exceptional and considered this to be the right time to see whether the defendant could conquer his drug problem.  Both the social inquiry report and specialist substance misuse report prepared by the alcohol and drugs service recommended that the time had come to attempt to address the defendant's drug problem.  The Court considered dealing with this matter by way of a non-custodial sentence and recommended one year's probation on condition that (1) the defendant attend the drugs and alcohol service; (2) he remains abstinent from all drugs; (3) he complies with any treatment recommended by the drugs and alcohol service; and (4) he attends the SMART programme.  In addition the defendant must comply with the directions of his probation officer regarding his employment.  The Court remarked that the defendant had been very fortunate on this occasion but should he come back before the Court there was a strong likelihood of a prison sentence.

 

D.E. Le Cornu, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.R.G. Deacon for the Defendant

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The Crown is content that the Court should pass sentence on the defendant's version of events which is that he found a bag of 100 ecstasy tablets at his flat after a party.   He did not know to whom the drugs belonged and he was keeping them with a view to giving them back to whoever turned out to be the owner.

2.          On that basis the Crown accepts that the Campbell guidelines do not apply because this was not a case of commercial drug trafficking.   However, the Crown say that this is still a serious offence and suggest a starting point of 5 years'.

3.        Miss Deacon says that the case should be treated as exceptional.   This was hardly a case of drug trafficking at all in the sense that he had not planned anything; he had simply found the drugs and was going to return them to whoever had left them there.

4.        This is a young man who has had a drug problem for some years.   He is only 19 and that clearly goes to his credit as does the fact that his family have been supportive.

5.        The Court has to consider whether this is the right time to see whether he can conquer his drug problem because, if he does not, he is likely to appear before us on regular occasions with increasing sentences.

6.        We have had the benefit of a report from the Probation Service and the Drug and Alcohol Service and both of them recommend strongly that this is the right time to see whether the defendant's drug problem can be addressed by outside assistance.  

7.        In all the circumstances we think that this is an exceptional case and we can therefore proceed by way of a non custodial sentence.  The sentence of the Court is that you be placed on probation for 1 year but we are going to impose conditions as set out by the Probation Service, and the conditions are as follows: you will have to attend the Drug and Alcohol Service; you must remain abstinent from all drugs, and this will be tested by random urine analysis; you must comply with any treatment determined by the Alcohol and Drugs Service; and you must attend the SMART programme which is a Probation Service programme.   In addition - we are not going to make it a condition because any probation order means that you must do what your probation officer tells you - but in particular you must do what he says in relation to employment and other matters because it is high time that you got a job.   You can consider yourself very fortunate.  If you come back before us because you have not attended any of these programmes or you have committed further offences or you have not done what the probation officer told you then you will face a strong likelihood of a prison sentence.   So this is your opportunity.  Take advantage of it.

Authorities

Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. (26^th October, 2001) Jersey Unreported; CofA,; [2001/212].

A.G. -v- Ashworth (25^th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/24].

Campbell, Molloy & Mckenzie -v-AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA.