Inferior Number Sentencing – drugs – importation – supply – Class B.

[2013]JRC196

Royal Court

(Samedi)

4 October 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Joshua James Crabtree

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Customs officers seized at the Post Office a special delivery package addressed to the defendant at his home address.  The package contained four silver foil sachets containing 11.09 grams of Methylmethcathinone and Pentedrone, both Class B.  These substances are generally known as New Psychoactive Substances (“NPS”).  The value of the powder seized based upon £60 per gram for street sales was £660.  A search warrant was executed at the defendant’s home address and various items were seized including a laptop computer.  When first interviewed he gave a signed bank disclosure authority. 

An examination of the laptop etc. revealed that the defendant had on two occasions ordered quantities of “Magic Crystals” i.e. Methylmethcathinone and Pentedrone.  The first order had not arrived (Count 1) and the second had been seized by Customs (Count 2).  In interview he stated that he thought that the “Magic Crystals” etc. were legal from the content of the website.  He subsequently admitted that he had a suspicion that it was illegal to import the drugs into Jersey.  This was the reason why he had not contacted the police when the first order had not arrived. 

An examination of the laptop computer etc. also revealed that on four occasions the defendant had ordered quantities of “Dove” tablets.  From previous seizures derived from the same website as used by the defendant “Doves” were known to contain Class B drug 6-(2-aminopropyl) Benzofuran.  Various empty packing for such drugs was found at the defendant’s home address.  He admitted that he had made four orders online but only the latter three were prosecuted as Benzofuran only became an illegal drug following an amendment to the Law on 21^st September, 2012.  He paid a total of £930.22 for these drugs which he said were for his own personal use (Counts 4-6 inclusive).

He admitted on two separate occasions having supplied to friends a small number of tablets (2/3) on a social supply basis with no money exchanging hands (Counts 7 and 8).  The Crown accepted the factual basis provided for these pleas. 

The defendant therefore imported 21 grams of “Magic Crystals” and 235 “Dove” tablets.  He paid the sum of £1,200 for these drugs and they had a street value of £3,610.  The “Dove” tablets had been subject to a “buy one get one free” offer which would have increased the street value to £5,960 and whilst it would appear illogical for him not to have taken advantage of this offer, given that there was no evidence that he accepted the offer, the Crown proceeded on the lower value. 

Details of Mitigation:

Both in terms of quantity and the value of the drugs imported, the case fell outside of the Campbell guidelines.  The Crown had regard to the recent cases of AG-v-Sanguy and AG-v-L’Enfant.  The Crown considered whether a custodial sentence should be moved for but had regard to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 given the defendant’s age.  The Crown reached the conclusion that there was an appropriate method of dealing with this defendant other than by the passing of a sentence of youth detention.  Aged 19 when the importation took place.  Guilty pleas.  Generally cooperative in interview making admissions.  Full time employment and long-term relationship with girlfriend were positive and stabilising influences upon him.  Positive references had been provided.  Investigation had taken some 7 months to conclude. 

The Defence

The defendant had a troubled past.  At last signs that he was putting his criminal past behind him.  He had a number of stabilising influences in his life, full-time employment, apprenticeship, support of girlfriend and good relationship with family.  Genuine motive to change.  Offending arose out of a suspicion that the tablets etc. were illegal rather than knowledge that they were.  Took websites at face value when clearly stated that they were “100% legal in UK”.  They were for personal use.  Defence supported the Crown’s non-custodial conclusions as recommended by the Social Enquiry Report. 

Previous Convictions:

9 convictions for 24 offences including grave and criminal assaults, common assaults, assault on Police, resisting a police officer, possession of an offensive weapon, shop-lifting, robbery, possession of a controlled drug (cannabis) and breaches of previous Court Orders by re-offending etc. 

Conclusions:

Total: 180 hours’ Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months’ youth detention, consecutive to the existing Magistrate’s Court Community Service Order imposed on 24^th April, 2013, plus a 12 month Probation Order. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and paraphernalia sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Pleaded guilty to five counts of importation of Class B drugs including one attempt and two counts of supply.  The drugs were Methylmethcathinone, Pentedrone and Benzofuran.  The supply offences involved social supply to friends.  These drugs were described in some quarters as “legal highs” but they are not.  They are illegal and it is important that this message becomes widely known particularly to young people. 

The Defendant knew or suspected that they were illegal and he was to be sentenced on the basis of suspicion.  People needed to be cautious as to what they believed on such websites.  These drugs are described as plant feed, not for human consumption and if that was believed then one would not take them at all.  It is presumed that readers do not believe that because the website also states that these tablets provide an “energising, euphoric and collecting experience”.  It is hard to see plant feed pills can provide such an “energising, euphoric and collection experience”.  It was hard to see why plant food would be described as being 100% legal and the defendant should have known straight away that they were not legal.  It was noted that the maximum sentence for these offences we 14 years’ imprisonment.  Whilst outside the Campbell guidelines, the Court had to consider whether a custodial sentence was the appropriate sentence. 

In this case the Court was not going to impose a custodial sentence as the defendant had the benefit of youth.  The Court had regard to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.  The Court accepted the Crown’s conclusions as supported by Defence Counsel as there was an alternative appropriate method of dealing with the defendant other than youth detention.  The Court had regard to his previous record but in accordance with the Social Enquiry Report the Court hoped that he was turning a corner.  The fact that he had a job in the current economic climate was viewed as a very significant plus.  He would be very foolish to jeopardise that job.  The Court issued words of caution in that the Law was there to be respected.  If he continued to use cannabis then he was not showing respect for the Law.  Using cannabis was unlawful and he should stop.  The defendant was advised to take advantage of the opportunity he had been given.  He had been fortunate. 

Conclusions granted.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You have pleaded guilty to five counts of being knowingly concerned in the importation of Class B drugs, or attempting to do, and two counts of the supply of the same drugs.  The drugs concerned are Methylmethcathinone, Pentedrone and Benzofuran.  Supply in the case of those two counts was to school friends.  These drugs are described in some quarters as “legal highs”.  They are not.  They are illegal highs and it is important that this becomes widely-known as people, in particular young people, may unwittingly get themselves into trouble when dealing with them.  There is no risk of your being unwittingly in trouble.  You knew or suspected that the drugs were illegal drugs.  You say you only suspected it and we will be sentencing you on that basis. 

2.        Your counsel has passed up to us a copy of the website printout and it just emphasises that people should be selective in what they believe.  Material on the internet is not necessarily credible.  These drugs are sold as, apparently, plant feeder pills not for human consumption.  If one believes that then clearly they would not be taken at all, but presumably those who read this particular passage on the internet, this advertisement, do not believe it because it is described as providing an “energising, euphoric, collecting experience” and it is hard to see how someone who acquires plant feeder pills could get an “energising, euphoric, collecting experience.”  So when it says the plant feeder pills are not for human consumption and are 100% legal, anyone reading this material carefully would know straight away that this is not material that can be believed. 

3.        Importing Class B drugs into this Island carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.  At levels which attract the imposition of the Campbell guidelines the Court’s policy is to pass very significant custodial sentences.  This case is below the Campbell guidelines but the starting point remains that a custodial sentence is the appropriate sentence to impose because that is what the legislature has, in effect, provided for by making the offence carry a maximum sentence of 14 years’ in custody. 

4.        In this case the Court is not going to impose a custodial sentence because you have the advantage of having committed these offences whilst still a young person, to whom the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies, and we accept the Crown’s contention supported by your counsel that that Law means that we should not impose a custodial sentence in this case.  But you should be aware that we have had to give anxious consideration to what is the right sentence and we have had particular regard to the record of offending which you have previously committed. 

5.        We hope, from the background reports, that you are turning the corner.  It is very important that you should because you are rapidly running out of the days when you can rely upon your youth and on the 1994 Law.  In the sense that today you have a job, in the economic circumstances of today when so many young people do not have jobs, that is a very significant plus which you would be very foolish to jeopardise.  So we add those words of warning to the sentence which we are about to impose, and we add to the warning this, that you have got to realise that the law is there to be respected.  When we look at the social enquiry report, it says you continue to use cannabis.  That does not reflect somebody who recognises that the law is there to be respected.  It is illegal to use cannabis.  You should stop doing it. 

6.        In the circumstances of all the mitigation which is available to you which has been mentioned by the Crown and by your counsel, we have reached the conclusion that the sentences moved for by the Crown Advocate are correct and those conclusions are granted in their entirety.  You are therefore sentenced to 180 hours’ Community Service with a default sentence of 12 months’ youth detention, it is what the Court would have imposed had it not been imposing community service, and a 12 month Probation Order and that sentence is passed in relation to Counts 1 and 2 and 4 to 8 inclusive on the Indictment and they all run concurrently.  The sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the existing Magistrate’s Court Community Service Order which was imposed on 24^th April, 2013 with a 12 month Probation Order. 

7.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized and of the cannabis bong. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Sanguy [2012] JRC 170A.

AG-v-L’Enfant [2013] JRC 169.