[2004]JRC026
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
12th February 2004
Before:
|
Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats de
Veulle, Rumfitt, Quérée, Le Breton, Georgelin and King.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Darren Maurice Hare (aka Le Cocq)
Sentencing by the
Superior Number of the Royal Court,
to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 3rd December, 2003,
following a guilty plea to:
2 counts of:
|
Possession of a controlled drug contrary to
Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey)
Law, 1978.
Count 5: cannabis.
Count 6: heroin.
|
2 counts of:
|
Possession of controlled drug with intention
to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.
Count 2: cannabis.
Count 4: ecstasy.
|
[The
Crown did not proceed with counts 1 and 3}.
Age: 35.
Details of Offence:
Police executed a search warrant at
the home address of Hare. In a bag
in a cupboard they found 6 bars of cannabis (total weight 1.47 kilos) and 199
ecstasy tablets. The cannabis had a
street value of £8,640 and a wholesale value of £6,000. The ecstasy had a street value of
£2,000 and a wholesale value of between £1,194 and £1,592.
The Police also found a personal
amount of heroin and a cigarette containing cannabis. Hare later admitted that he had been
minding the bars of cannabis and the ecstasy for someone else and that although
he knew the bag contained the cannabis, was unaware of the presence of
ecstasy. He admitted that the
heroin (778 mg) and cannabis cigarette were for his own personal use. Hare entered guilty pleas to all six
counts on indictment.
For the purposes of sentencing the
alternative possession counts 1 and 3 fell away.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, background of
psychiatric problems, abstinence from heroin while in custody.
Previous Convictions:
Very bad record with one previous
conviction for two counts of supplying heroin.
Conclusions:
Count 2:
|
18 months’ imprisonment.
|
Count 4:
|
5 years’ imprisonment.
|
Count 5:
|
3 months’ imprisonment.
|
Count 6:
|
6 months’ imprisonment, all
concurrent.
|
8 years’ starting point.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Hare, appearing on his
own behalf, had put his mitigation very well, but in the circumstances the
Court felt that the Crown’s conclusions were correct and granted the same.
C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
The Defendant on his own behalf.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1.
This
defendant is to be sentenced for the possession of 199 tables of MDMA and
nearly one and half kilograms of cannabis resin with intent to supply. The MDMA is said to have a street value
of £2,000 and the cannabis a street value of £8,640. He is also to be sentenced for possession
of a small quantity of cannabis and of heroin both of which were for his
personal use.
2.
Hare is 35
and has a long record of 17 previous convictions including convictions for drug
offences. He is probably
addicted to heroin and there is certainly a risk of his resuming the abuse of
that drug. He has mental health
problems which are related to his abuse of drugs over a long period.
3.
Hare
maintains that he was “minding” the large quantity of cannabis and
ecstasy for someone else. We do not
regard that as a mitigating factor.
It is a factor to which we have had regard in assessing the degree of
his involvement in drug trafficking, and the appropriate starting point. For the avoidance of doubt we accept
that he is to be sentenced as a minder and not as a dealer.
4.
We
approach the question of his involvement on the basis of the passage in Whelan:
Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2nd
Ed’n), to which the Crown Advocate drew our attention. That passage reads:
“The notion that a minder
invariably occupies some fixed, lower, position in the order of drugs
criminality has become outmoded; it is not apt to reflect the realities of a
given case;
the minder can – and perhaps
usually does – play a fundamental part in ensuring that dangerous drugs
reach their intended market, namely the streets.
In a given case the position of the
minder will depend on the amount of drugs involved and what inferences can
properly be drawn from the surrounding circumstances as to the part he was
playing in the overall supply of the drugs. There may well be circumstances in which
the position of the minder is one which justifies the conclusion that he is
more seriously involved in the drug trade than the courier.”
5.
We have
looked at the case of A.G. –v-Lavin [2003]JRC197 to which the
Defendant has referred us and it is true that that defendant imported much
larger quantities of drugs. It is
however, very difficult to compare one case with another because the court in
each case has to look at all the individual circumstances which will, of course,
differ.
6.
One
circumstance in the Lavin case - we have procured a copy of the Court’s
judgment - was that he had no previous conviction for drugs offences. The Crown Advocate has applied the
guideline cases and has arrived at a starting point of 8 years
imprisonment. We think that that
starting point is correct.
7.
In mitigation
there is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty, and has acknowledged
his involvement in these offences. There is a sad and difficult background
including a question of sexual abuse which the defendant has told us has
affected him badly. We have read the
helpful reports provided by the different agencies and we take account of all
the matters set out in those reports.
At the end of the day, however, our conclusion is that the Crown
Advocate has made the proper allowance for all the mitigation available.
8.
Hare you
have said very well everything that could be said on your behalf and we have given
it very careful consideration. We
hope that when you have served the sentence which we are about to pronounce for
these offences that you will indeed be clear of drugs and will make something
of your life in the future.
9.
The
conclusions are granted and we sentence you on count 2, to 18 months’
imprisonment; on count 4, to 5 years’ imprisonment; and on count 5, to 3
months’ imprisonment; and on count 6 to 6 months’ imprisonment, all
those sentences to be concurrent making a total of 5 years’ imprisonment,
and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
A.G.
–v- Welsh (3rd February, 2000) Jersey Unreported;
[2000/21].
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the
Superior Courts of Jersey (2nd Ed’n): pp.66-73.
Valler
–v- A.G. [2002] JLR 383.
Bonnar and Noon –v- A.G. [2001] JLR 626.
A.G. –v- Buesnel [1996] JLR 265.
Campbell & Ors –v- A.G.
[1995] JLR 136.
A.G. –v-Lavin [2003]JRC19.
Rimmer, Lusk, and Bade-v-AG [2001]
JLR 373.