[2009]JRC203
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
23rd October 2009
|
Before :
|
Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt. Commissioner and
Jurats King and Newcombe.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Brian David Magrath
Leila Magrath
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Brian David Magrath
|
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).
|
|
1 count of:
|
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to
Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey)
Law 1978 (Count 2).
|
|
1 count of:
|
Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to
Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey)
Law 1978 (Count 3).
|
Age: 64.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The two defendants were father and
daughter. Police executed a drugs
warrant at the defendants’ home address. Leila Magrath surrendered a total of 57
grams of herbal cannabis (Count 2) from her room, with a value of around
£560, together with £1,137 in cash. In Brian Magrath’s room the Police
seized a total of 542.57 grams of cannabis resin (Count 2) with a value of
£3,235 together with £3,120 in cash.
Leila Magrath later admitted that it
had been her intention to supply an ounce of the herbal cannabis to fund her
own habit (Count 1). She could not
explain the provenance of some £470 of the money found in her room. Brian Magrath maintained that the
cannabis resin was entirely for his own use, and said he had been smoking the
drug for 35 years. He did however
admit that he had given small amounts of cannabis to Leila in the past (Count
3), and would have done so again in the future (Count 1). He thus admitted to social supply of the
drug on those two counts. Brian
Magrath explained that the cash found in his room represented his life savings,
as he did not have a bank account.
He denied knowledge of his daughter’s involvement in the sale of
cannabis.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas, co-operation, good
work record, now drug free.
Previous Convictions:
12 previous convictions including
a previous supply of cannabis in 1983, for which he was sentenced to 9
months’ imprisonment.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
3 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
6 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 3:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 6 months’ imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of
drugs sought.
Confiscation order in the sum of
£1,030 sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court was greatly
concerned that Brian Magrath had encouraged his daughter’s cannabis use
and said that he had come perilously close to custody.
|
Count 1:
|
90 hours’ Community Service Order or 3
months’ imprisonment in default.
|
|
Count 2:
|
120 hours’ Community Service Order or
6 months’ imprisonment in default plus an 18 month Probation Order
together with a 12 month Treatment Order, concurrent.
|
|
Count 3:
|
90 hours’ Community Service Order or 3
months’ imprisonment in default, concurrent.
|
Total: 120 hours’ Community Service Order
or 6 months’ imprisonment in default plus an 18 month Probation Order and
a 12 month Treatment Order.
Forfeiture and
destruction of drugs ordered.
Confiscation order in
the sum of £1,030 ordered.
Leila Magrath
|
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).
|
|
1 count of:
|
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to
Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey)
Law 1978 (Count 2).
|
Age: 19.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Brian Magrath above.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas, co-operation,
youth, carer for parents, good work record and charity work, now drug free.
Previous Convictions:
4 previous convictions including
possession of cannabis in 2007.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
90 hours’ Community Service Order or 4
months’ youth detention in default.
|
|
Count 2:
|
70 hours’ Community Service Order or 2
months’ youth detention in default, concurrent.
|
Plus a 12 month Binding Over Order
and 12 month Treatment Order.
Total: 90 hours’ Community Service Order or
4 months’ imprisonment in default plus a 12 month Binding Over Order and
a 12 month Treatment Order.
Forfeiture and destruction of
drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate C. R. Baglin for B. D. Magrath.
Advocate S. A. Pearmain for L. Magrath.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1.
Brian Magrath,
you were found in possession of a relatively large quantity of cannabis resin
but the Court has accepted your explanation that it was essentially for your
personal use and we are sentencing you on that basis.
2.
What has
greatly concerned this Court is the fact that you encouraged your daughter to
engage in this illicit behaviour and encouraged her to smoke cannabis at a
stage when she was very young and vulnerable. It was an irresponsible and stupid thing
to do and we hope very much that you understand that. In one sense it could be said that you
have been rather lucky that you have not come to the attention of the
authorities before, having regard to your admission as to the length of time
that you have been engaging in the smoking of cannabis.
3.
On the
other hand we have been impressed by the reports that we have received of your
attempts to overcome your addiction to cannabis. You have come perilously close to a
custodial sentence and I have to warn you that if, as a result of the sentence
which we are about to impose, it subsequently comes to the attention of the authorities
that you are continuing to take cannabis it is extremely probable that you will
end up in custody. We are going to
avoid that this morning and we are going to accept the recommendation of the
Probation Service.
4.
We are
going to place you on probation for a period of 18 months and there will be a
condition that you attend for 12 months at the Alcohol and Drug Service in
accordance with instructions that you will receive from them. We are also going to order you to
perform 120 hours of community service to the satisfaction of the Community
Service organiser and we state that the equivalent custodial sentence is one of
6 months’ imprisonment.
5.
Leila, we
want you to understand that dealing in drugs is a very serious offence. Dealing in cannabis can lead you into
contact with very much more unpleasant drugs and generally speaking, if you had
been an adult, the Court would have been considering a custodial sentence. We are satisfied there is another way of
dealing with you this morning and we are not going to send you to youth
detention. But, as with your
father, I want to give you a very clear warning that if you slip back into the
use of cannabis in the future there is a very real possibility that you will
end up in custody. Now we think
that you are capable of much better things than that. We were very impressed by the report
which we received from your headmistress and we are impressed by the voluntary
service that you are doing at Autism Jersey and by the attempts that you are
making to improve yourself by doing the IT course. We want to encourage you to do those
things because if you do, and you keep away from cannabis in the future, we are
confident that you can make a great success of your life. We want you to do that because you have
had a very hard start in life, as we understand.
6.
We are
going to sentence you to 90 hours’ Community Service on Count 1 with the
equivalent of 4 months’ youth detention if you do not perform that
satisfactorily, 70 hours’ Community Service on Count 2, concurrent, the
equivalent of 2 months’ youth detention and we are going to bind you over
for a period of 12 months to be of good behaviour and that means what I have
just explained to you. It is a
condition of the Binding Over Order that you attend at the Alcohol and Drug
Service for drug counselling and testing as they may require you to do.
7.
We finally
make a confiscation order in the sum of £1,030 which was not opposed.
8.
We order
the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.
Campbell
and Others-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.
Morgan
and Schlandt-v-AG [2001] JLR 225.