Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC028

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12^th February 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Joseph O'Neill

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 5th December, 2003, following a guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intention to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 1:  cannabis.
4 counts of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 2:  cannabis. Count 3:  cannabis. Count 4:  cannabis. Count 5:  cannabis.

 

 

Age:     33.

 

Details of Offence:

Between the 1^st September, 2003, and the 2^nd October, 2003, Joseph O'Neill took possession of 20 kg of cannabis resin.  He claimed that he began to supply the cannabis resin to associates in 1 kg amounts.  Initials written on a piece of paper seized from his address represent the associates he had supplied.  O'Neill charged £3,500 for 1 kg.  He claimed the supply was on 'tick'.  By this he meant, that it was supplied to his associates on credit.  The 15.523 kg of cannabis resin in the form of 63 nine bars found in O'Neill's premises on the 2^nd October, 2003, was the remainder.  His intention prior to arrest was to deal with this in the same way.  Eventually made admissions in interview to having possessed more than had been seized.

Quantities:

Overall 20 kg of cannabis resin.

Seized 15.523 kg.

Key Factors:

Amount, type and quantity.

Commercial supply.

Close to source of supply.

 

Details of Mitigation:

General:  Guilty plea.  Surrendered to jurisdiction.  Wrote his own indictment in relation to counts 2 - 5.

33.  Partner.  Alcoholic.  Overwhelmed by debt.  No drug related previous convictions.  Difficult childhood.  Co-operated with police.  Only occasional drug use himself.

 

Previous Convictions:

No drug related previous convictions.  Mainly drink related.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 4:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 5:	1 year's imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.

Admitted to possession of 15.5 kg with a wholesale value of £63,000.  You also admitted to having possessed a total of 20 kg.  This was a commercial amount.  Claimed that he was to receive £2,000.  Looking at the scale for the volume of drugs of this type one might arrive at the starting point of 7 years.  However, on the basis of the nature and scale of the offence, the claim that the supply was on tick and the supply was on credit, one can assume that O'Neill was very close to the main dealer.  The starting point of 9 years is confirmed.

In mitigation Court has taken into account his very valuable guilty plea.  Full credit has been given.  The fact that he wrote his own indictment is also worthy of significant mitigation.  Taking into account the other available mitigation and the fact that defendants should be encouraged to co-operate, Court gave slightly more mitigation than the Crown.  Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

 

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 4:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 5:	1 year's imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

 

S.M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M.J. Haines for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        O'Neill was found in possession of 15.5 kilograms of cannabis valued at some £63,000 on the street.  He admitted frankly that he had taken possession of a total of 20 kilograms of cannabis and had sold several kilograms to friends.

2.        This was a commercial operation.  He was apparently to receive a fee of £2,000 or so for his activity as a "wholesale" supplier of cannabis.  Making the arithmetical calculation set out in the guidelines laid down in Campell -v- Attorney General [1995]JLR136, one might arrive at a starting point of 8 years' imprisonment, but we have to consider the extent to which the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking and the nature and scale of his activities. 

3.        He claims that this very substantial quantity of cannabis was received by him on credit and that his supplying of cannabis to 4 different customers was equally done on credit.  On the assumption that this is true the defendant is clearly very close to a significant dealer.  We agree with the Crown Advocate that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of 9 years' imprisonment.

4.        We turn to the mitigation available to the defendant.  He did make frank admissions to the police and he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.  It was, as defence counsel has rightly submitted, a valuable plea, and he is entitled to the full one-third discount for that plea.  The Crown has allowed a further year for the remaining mitigation which is of some significance. 

5.        The criminal record placed before us is inaccurate and we can place no reliance on it.  We are, therefore, going to treat the defendant as a first offender.

6.        It is also the case that his confession as to the quantity of cannabis which first came into his possession led to the writing of his own indictment, in relation to the 4 counts of supplying cannabis and that in turn led to a higher starting point than might otherwise have been the case.  We again agree with defence counsel that defendants should be encouraged to be co-operative and truthful with the police and we are prepared therefore to make a slightly greater allowance for the mitigating factors than has been allowed by the Crown.

7.        On count 1 you will be sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment; on counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 to 1 year's imprisonment, concurrent; making a total of 4 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Campbell & Ors -v- A.G. [1995]JLR136.

A.G. -v- Darren [2003]JRC173.

A.G. -v- Vallois (3rd May, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/95].

A.G. -v- McMahon (27^th April, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/74].

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): pp. 6-29.