Jersey Unreported Judgments

Drugs - application for an adjournment of sentencing.

[2023]JRC128

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 July 2023

The Attorney General

-v-

Shane Derek Lloyd

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. E. Binnie for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This case is listed for sentence today and has been for some time.  The full court is gathered for that purpose.  In the Defendant's letter of remorse written to the Court last week it appears, he asked the Court to consider, in his words:-

"what I feel may be mitigating circumstances somewhat in that I believe and have been told by family that they believe me to have undiagnosed ADHD. This may a contributing factor ln why I have made some very impulsive and stupid decisions that aren't in anyone's best interests."

2.        This needs to be seen in the context of the Pre-Sentence Report, particularly paragraphs 27 and 32.  Paragraph 27 speaks about the Defendant's schooling and the qualifications he obtained and paragraph 32 says the Defendant "reports no physical health concerns or mental health diagnosis".  Nonetheless the reference in the letter of remorse has led Defence Counsel to ask this case be put back today by way of an adjournment for the purpose of an assessment of the Defendant to establish whether or not he has ADHD.  Counsel says on his behalf that it may be relevant to sentence on the footing that it may explain the Defendant's self-medicated with illegal drugs.  It might explain his decision making and his inability to learn from mistakes and could explain his failure to learn from previous offending and may lead to a reduction in sentence.  The Probation Officer says that any such diagnosis would make little difference to the recommendations and observes that there are people carrying out non-custodial orders, such as Probation Orders, who are neurodiverse, including those with a diagnosis of ADHD.

3.        We need to bear in mind that the Defendant is being sentenced on the footing that he was, for a significant period, a professional drug dealer carrying out a number of complicated financial and other transactions, as revealed by his mobile phone data, and that he has a glowing work reference from his current employer. 

4.        We have had regard to the overriding objective in Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Jersey) Law 2018 and we note that under Article 3 we need to have regard to the rights of the Defendant, we need to deal with the case efficiently and expeditiously, we need to ensure that appropriate information is available to the Court when bail or sentence is being considered and that dealing with a case justly requires us to take into account the gravity of the offence, the severity of the consequence for the Defendant and the needs of other cases.  This case has been listed for a long time.  This is a two court jurisdiction for most purposes, certainly a two full time judge jurisdiction, Court resources are scarce and we are here today at significant public cost.  Counsel are here and the full Court has been convened.

5.        Having regard to the circumstances of this offence, we take the view that even if there was such a diagnosis in front of us it would not amount to significant mitigation and, having regard to the overriding objectives and the matters to which we have referred, in the exercise of our discretion we do not think it appropriate to adjourn for the purpose of seeking further material in relation to this matter - identified as it was at the eleventh hour. 

Authorities

Criminal Procedure (Jersey) Law 2018