Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC117

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

22^nd July 2008

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Bullen, Le Breton, Allo, King and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

Kevin Bernard Doublet

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 2^nd May, 2008, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuses of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 2).

Age:  43.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Doublet found in possession of 55 ecstasy tablets at his flat and cash.  He admitted he had sold 15 tablets and intended selling the remaining 55.  He had bought them from a man in a pub, who he refused to name, for £3 each and was selling them for £10 each.  He was in employment but was selling the drugs to make some money to spend on holiday.  He initially claimed that he thought the tablets were legal (herbal) "highs" but eventually admitted his guilt and pleaded to the indictment.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; he wrote this own indictment as far as trafficking was concerned, the Court noting that as he was in employment, and an admitted recreational user of the drug, he could easily have claimed the 55 tablets were for his own use.  The reports noted that he appeared to now recognise the need to turn his life around.  He had hurt his family and his own children.  He appeared remorseful (a letter to that effect from him was produced in Court).  He had suffered from depression, even attempting suicide.  He was benefiting from treatment in prison, following an admission to St Saviour's Hospital.

Previous Convictions:

He had a similar previous conviction in 2003, having been sentenced then to 4 years' imprisonment.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3½ year's imprisonment.
Count 2:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £150 sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	30 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	30 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 30 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £150 made.

The defendant was a retail dealer at a low level.  The Crown's starting point of 7 years' imprisonment had not been challenged by the Defence.  His record ruled out any non-custodial option.  His co-operation in terms of plea and writing his own indictment were compelling features.  The Court felt able to reduce the Crown's conclusions and hoped the defendant would turn his life around after his release from prison.   

A. D. Robinson, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Doublet is to be sentenced for the possession with intent to supply of 55 ecstasy tablets and the supply of a further 15 tablets.  He is a retail dealer at a low level, having purchased the drugs for £3 per tablet, with the intention of selling them at £10 per tablet.  These transactions had been, or were to be, carried out from his home.  The defendant was in employment and his dealing was, he told the Police, to fund the cost of a holiday. 

2.        The Crown Advocate has taken a starting point of 7 years' imprisonment and the Defence Counsel did not demur.  We have considered whether a non-custodial sentence might be imposed but having regard to Doublet's record and in particular to the conviction for a drug trafficking offence in 2003, we do not think that such a sentence can properly be imposed.  Doublet knew what he was about and knew the consequences of trafficking in Class A drugs. 

3.        In mitigation, however, he made full admissions to the Police and pleaded guilty to the indictment.  We agree with everything that the Crown Advocate has said in relation to the mitigation but we were impressed by one of Defence Counsel's submissions, which we think constitutes another important ground of mitigation.  It is true, given the fact that Doublet was in employment and earning a good wage, that he could have claimed that the drugs were for his personal use rather than for onward sale.  He did not do so, but he candidly admitted to the Police that the purpose was to earn money for a holiday.  He is entitled to credit for that.

4.        Doublet we have read your letter very carefully and we hope very much that the good intentions that you have expressed in your letter will be matched by your deeds in due course when you come out of prison.  We also hope that you will be reconciled to your family and that you will, in future, forgo any involvement with drugs and that we will not see you again.

5.        The sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison on Count 1 for 30 months and on Count 2 for 30 months concurrent, making a total of 30 months' imprisonment.

6.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

No Authorities