Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession with intent to supply - Class A.

[2015]JRC015

Royal Court

(Samedi)

23 January 2015

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Nicolle and Ramsden

The Attorney General

-v-

Sophie Amber Rose Lusk

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of:

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

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

A postal package was delivered to an address in First Tower that Lusk was vacating.  Lusk did not know the addressee but suspected the package might be connected to an acquaintance who had stayed at the address for a few nights while her notice period expired.  Lusk opened the package which contained a quantity of tablets.  She attempted to contact the acquaintance but without success.  Lusk walked into town, carrying the tablets with her.  She made a further attempt to contact the acquaintance and was on her way to meet him when she was stopped, in the company of a regular offender, by police.  When informed that she was to be searched Lusk made immediate admissions as to "having something that she shouldn't" in her pocket.  Lusk was co-operative during interview, named her 'acquaintance' who she believed had been experimenting with what she referred to as 'legal highs', which she thought the tablets to be.  Analysis showed the package to contain 40 MDMA (Ecstasy) tablets.  Search of Lusk's home address and examination of her mobile telephone revealed no drug-related activity. 

Lusk's offending was aggravated as she was subject to a Magistrate's Court Probation Order at the time and had a previous conviction for possession of a Class B tablet. 

Details of Mitigation:

Lusk was co-operative throughout, made admissions on interview, named her acquaintance and indicated a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.  Only 18 at the time of offending, since when she had distanced herself from some of her old acquaintances and was living a more pro-social life, having lacked appropriate support and security during adolescence; retained benefit of youth, expressed remorse, unaccountable delay in process. 

Previous Convictions:

Seven previous offences dealt with at three previous court appearances each involving an incident of violence, one including possession of a single Class B tablet. 

Conclusions:

Count 1: Crown's starting point six years.  Entitled to a full one-third discount for guilty plea plus a further cumulative discount of 24 months for all other mitigation put before the Court, Crown moved for an immediate custodial sentence of 24 months' Youth Detention, with no separate penalty for the breach of probation this having been taken into consideration as an aggravating factor when considering sentence. 

Count 1:

2 years' youth detention.

Breach of Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 25 February, 2014: No separate penalty. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Crown had accepted that Lusk was a temporary custodian and that her involvement with the drugs was minimal, making her offending not so serious that a non-custodial sentence could not be justified. 

Count 1:

312 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention, together with a 12 month Probation Order.

Breach of Probation Order: No separate penalty. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of possession of 40 ecstasy tablets with intent to supply; this offence was committed in breach of a 9 month Probation Order imposed on 25^th February, 2014, for common assault.  The Crown accept that the defendant was, effectively, a temporary custodian of the drugs, having come into possession of them unexpectedly, finding that they had been delivered through the letter box of her address at First Tower, and being in the process of delivering them to an acquaintance who she named to the police.  The police have found no evidence to suggest the defendant stood to profit from her handling of these drugs.  Despite her guilty plea and the provisions of Article 4(2)(c) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 which apply to her, the Crown have reached the view that a sentence of 24 months' youth detention should be imposed. 

2.        The Probation Department assess the risk of reconviction within one year as high but they say this at paragraph 39, which we feel encapsulates the background very succinctly for this defendant:-

"39      This is due to offences committed at a young age (including violence) tragic, complex, chaotic family relationships, throughout which the thread of addiction runs on both sides of the family, unsatisfactory accommodation amongst the family from which the defendant finds it hard to escape, lack of employment which in turn engenders financial restrictions, lack of structured activities, use of legal and (around the time of the offence) illegal drugs, and negative peer group influence including that of close personal relationships."

But they go on to say there are positive factors in relation to the defendant; they describe her as having a generally strong disposition, of being aware of the difference between right and wrong, her positive influence of some of the younger members of her family, her predisposition to obtain employment, and her pleasant demeanour. 

3.        In terms of mitigation, the defendant has pleaded guilty and she was only 18 at the time of the offence.  Notwithstanding being in breach of the probation, the order continued and she did complete it.  We have considered the mitigation ably put forward by Advocate Grace and we conclude that the defendant's minimal involvement in the drugs trade do not render the offence so serious that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided.  The provisions of the Young Offenders Law do permit us therefore to depart from the guidance laid down in the guideline case of Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2011] JLR 626. 

4.        On Count 1 you are therefore sentenced to serve 312 hours' of community service, which is the equivalent to 24 months' youth detention.  In terms of the breach of the Probation Order, there will be no separate penalty.  We are also going to impose a probation Order of 1 year in relation to Count 1. 

5.        Finally we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

6.        We must just warn you that you must complete the 312 hours' of community service; if you fail to do so you will be brought back to this Court and almost certainly find yourself sentenced to youth detention.  The same point applies in relation to the Probation Order.  You must comply with that order, as you did indeed on the last occasion, and, again if you fail to do so, you will be brought back before us. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626.

AG v Ferreira 2002/238.

AG v Richards [2011] JRC 170.

AG v Koradi [2014] JRC 073.