[2004]JRC026

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12^th February 2004

 

 

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 3^rd 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 (2^nd 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 (3^rd February, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/21].

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd 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.