[2010]JRC030
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
12th February 2010
|
Before :
|
Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and
Jurats Clapham and Kerley.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Kevin Philip Patrick Mooney
Gareth Francis Cunningham
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Kevin Philip Patrick Mooney
First Indictment
|
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 medicine with
intent to supply, contrary to Article 44(1) of the Medicine (Jersey) Law 1995 (Count 2).
|
|
1 count of:
|
Obstructing a police officer (Count 3).
|
Age: 35.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On Tuesday 26th August, 2009, police
attended at Money’s flat. The
bed was still warm, his false teeth, shoes and watch were next to it. Noises were heard from flat 116 and
police suspected Mooney was inside.
At this point Cunningham arrived with another man who was heard to shout
“Kev, Kev” at Mooney’s window. Cunningham said that he had gone to the
building as he was concerned about him.
Inside Mooney’s wardrobe were
several compressed lumps of herbal cannabis. The total weight was 957.09g, and analysis
showed a Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
content of 7%, indicating it was “skunk” cannabis, more powerful
than typical herbal cannabis, and worth between £7,020 and £9,400.
A key to room 116 was obtained,
although the door was barricaded.
As an officer pushed his way past the obstruction he heard the toilet
flushing and saw Mooney in the bathroom.
There were tablets remaining in the toilet bowl, and inside a small
pedal bin a further 23 pills were found.
All the pills contained BZP.
Analysis concluded that there would have been around 340 tablets, making
a total of 363. BZP resembles and
is often sold as Ecstasy, the wholesale value is around £2,904 and the
retail value at £3,630.
When Mooney was interviewed he
answered no comment to most questions but stated that the cannabis was not his,
and that no-one else had access to his room. He said his memory of the events of that
morning was vague, due to his drinking three shots of vodka and some WKDS while
still in bed.
Fingerprint analysis of the plastic
bags containing the cannabis found 28 came from Cunningham. No prints matched Mooney. In interview, Cunningham denied knowing
anything about the drugs, but when told that his fingerprints had been found on
each of the bags holding the cannabis he said that he had been helping Mooney
look for them. Cunningham was in
possession of the cannabis for long enough for his fingerprints to be
transferred to all three layers of plastic, including the interior of the inner
bag.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, remorse, support of
girlfriend.
Previous Convictions:
Only recently been released from
prison following conviction for drug trafficking.
Conclusions:
First Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
Starting point 2 years’
imprisonment. 18 months’
imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
Starting point 1 year’s
imprisonment. 8 months’
imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 3:
|
6 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
Total: 2 years’ imprisonment.
Confiscation Order sought in the
sum of £102.99.
Forfeiture and destruction of the
drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
First Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
Starting point 2 years’
imprisonment. 12 months’
imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
Starting point 1 year’s
imprisonment. 8 months’
imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 3:
|
6 months’ imprisonment,
consecutive.
|
Total: 18 months’ imprisonment.
Confiscation Order in
the sum of £102.99 made.
Forfeiture and
destruction of the drugs ordered.
Gareth Francis Cunningham
Second Indictment
|
1 count of:
|
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to
Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey)
Law 1978 (Count 1).
|
Age: 28.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Mooney above.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, making progress at
treatment centre.
Previous Convictions:
Dreadful record stretching back
13 years including several for drugs offences.
Conclusions:
Second Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
12 month Probation Order with the condition
to follow directions of that department and Silkworth Lodge.
|
Forfeiture and destruction of the
drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Second Indictment
Conclusions granted.
R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. M. Grace for Mooney.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Cunningham.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1.
Kevin
Mooney is to be sentenced for possession of cannabis and a medicinal product
called BZP with intent to supply and for obstructing the police in the
execution of their duty by barring police entrance to his flat and trying to
dispose of the drugs in the meantime.
The cannabis was of the skunk herbal variety with a street value of over
£7,000; the BZP had a value of £3,000. Mooney was to receive a fee of
£500 for looking after the drugs but he agreed that he would sell them if
he could. Cunningham had possession
of the cannabis for a short period of time.
2.
Mooney has
a bad record and had been released from a long prison sentence for only 2
months when these offences were committed.
They were committed for commercial gain in that he was to receive the
fee of £500. Skunk herbal
cannabis is a powerful form of the drug and we agree with the Crown Advocate
that the appropriate starting point for this quantity is 2 years’
imprisonment.
3.
Having
said that we are going to reduce the conclusions slightly for two reasons. First we agree with Defence counsel that
a guilty plea in the context of this case was valuable and that Mooney is
entitled to his full one-third deduction.
Secondly, we think that the sooner Mooney can go to Silkworth Lodge so
as to address his alcoholism the better.
4.
Mooney, a
lot of people in the probation service and other public services are there to
help you. We hope that you will
take advantage of the help that you have been offered and will be offered at
Silkworth Lodge because if you do not, the future seems rather melancholy. We hope that the reduction in the
conclusions will encourage you when you get to Silkworth Lodge to do what you
need to do to put your life into proper shape.
5.
We are
going to sentence you to on Count 1; 12 months’ imprisonment, on Count 2;
8 months’ imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 3; 6 months’
imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 18 months’
imprisonment.
6.
Cunningham
we have read your letter; we hope that you are going to take advantage of
everything that is being offered to you at Silkworth Lodge. You too have a melancholy past and we
hope very much that the future will be brighter for you if you keep on the
straight and narrow.
7.
We are
going to impose a 12 month Probation Service Order subject to the usual
conditions that you live and work as directed by the probation officer and be
of good behaviour during that time and that you reside at Silkworth Lodge for
so long as it is recommended by the probation officer.
8.
We order
the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
Campbell-v-AG
[1995] JLR 136.