Inferior
Number Sentencing - drugs - possession and possession with intent to supply -
Class A.
[2018]JRC048
Royal Court
(Samedi)
5 March 2018
|
Before :
|
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and
Jurats Grime and Christensen.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Aaron Andrew Webb
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
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: 21.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The defendant’s name and
possible connection with the purchase of MDMA (Ecstasy) tablets came to the
attention of Customs Officers following up leads in an investigation; he was
located and arrested on suspicion of being concerned in drug trafficking. A search was made of the defendant’s
home, where 145½ tablets were found in his bedroom as well as £650
in cash and 2·08 grams of cannabis resin. Street value of tablets estimated at
£2,120 to £3,610. During
interview defendant stated he had obtained the tablets ‘on tick’,
that he was intending to sell the majority to like-minded friends on a
not-for-profit basis, keep some for himself and that the £650 was payment
received relating to some of those tablets; stated it had been ‘his turn’
to get tablets for self and friends. The defendant provided authority for
investigation of his bank accounts and access codes for his iPhone; there were
four messages on his phone which appeared to relate to drugs - those messages
all within the three days prior to his arrest - and one suspicious transaction
on a bank account, the day prior to his arrest, of £108 which he admitted
related to payment for 6 tablets
Details of Mitigation:
Cooperative throughout
investigation, immediate guilty pleas. Had ceased all illicit drug use and found
new circle of friends. Following
arrest employment at major bank terminated. While on bail sought and found employment
as apprentice plumber. Remanded
into custody on indictment, time in prison a sharp lesson reinforcing resolve
to keep clean of drugs. New
employer, impressed by attitude kept apprenticeship available and attended
Court as did a number of others who had provided supportive testimonials. Letter of remorse, declared intentions
taken as genuine.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
(from a starting point of 7 years)
|
|
Count 2:
|
2 weeks’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 3 years and 6 months’
imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the
drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1:
|
456 hours’ Community Service Order,
equivalent to 3 years’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
45 hours’ Community Service Order,
concurrent, equivalent to 2 weeks’ imprisonment.
|
Total: 456 hours’ Community Service
Order, to be completed within 24 months.
Forfeiture and
destruction of the drugs ordered.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate I.C. Jones for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1.
The
defendant, who is 21, stands to be sentenced for possession with intent to
supply of 145 ecstasy tablets and possession of a small quantity of cannabis
resin.
2.
The
defendant told the police that he and a group of likeminded friends would
travel to music festivals and had been introduced to a culture of substance
abuse for heightened enjoyment. He
had acquired these tablets on tick, which he was going to supply to his friends
on a no-profit basis, using a number himself. The £650 seized from his bedroom
represented part of the proceeds of that supply to his friends.
3.
Applying
the guidelines in Bonnar & Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626 the starting
point for this quantity of tablets is 7 to 9 years and the Crown take a
starting point of 7 years and move for a sentence of 3½ years after
mitigation. We agree with that
starting point.
4.
Turning to
the mitigation it can be said of this defendant that it is exceptional:-
(i)
He has
pleaded guilty.
(ii) He has no previous convictions so he is a man
of good character.
(iii) Although not naming his supplier he was fully
cooperative with the police giving them the unlock codes for his IPhone and the
authority to investigate his bank accounts. Out of the thousands of exchanges on his
IPhone only four were considered to be drug related, received over the few days
prior to his arrest. His bank
account showed only one potentially drug related payment of £108 on the
day prior to his arrest. Otherwise
his account showed only regular income from employment and outgoings consistent
with normal expenditure.
(iv) He has achieved well academically at school and
had a career in the finance industry which he has now lost.
(v) He is assessed at a low risk of reconviction
because using the words of the Probation Officer in Social Enquiry Report “he is a first offender, he has an
excellent employment record, he has hobbies he pursues outside work and has
good relationships with family members.”
(vi) He has declared his intention to maintain a
drug free life style and we were told by the Probation Officer that his declaration
of intention is genuine.
(vii) He is young. This offence was committed five months
after his 21st birthday and so he is just outside the provisions of
the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 2014, which prohibits
the court imposing a sentence of imprisonment unless firstly the defendant “has
a history of failure to respond to non-custodial [sentences]”,
that obviously does not apply here.
Secondly, “only a custodial sentence would protect the public”
again that does not apply here. And
thirdly, “the offending is …so serious that a non-custodial sentence
cannot be justified.”
This last element could apply, bearing in mind the policy of the court
to impose custodial sentences for drug trafficking offences unless there are
exceptional circumstances.
(viii) Having lost his career in the finance industry
he has set about securing a second career as an electrician. He has started that apprenticeship and we
have a letter from his employer of 24th February, 2018, which says
in the last paragraph “We are
committed to support [THE DEFENDANT] during his court case and have left his
employment options open pending the outcome.”
(ix) The Probation Officer in the Social Enquiry
Report recommends that the defendant should be given the chance of community
service.
(x) He has the support in court of a large number
of people, comprising of family, former employers and friends and he has extensive
references which we have considered.
(xi) He has had the shock of having to serve nearly
2 months’ imprisonment prior to his sentencing today.
5.
Ultimately,
we have a young defendant before us of good character, who has foolishly got
involved with friends in the drug scene, who we accept is genuinely remorseful,
and who has as a result of that foolishness lost his career in the finance
industry. He has now found a new
path to follow as an electrician and has a place in local firm as we have said.
6.
Notwithstanding
the policy of the court, we think there is enough mitigation to justify the
court imposing community service as a direct alternative to a sentence of
imprisonment, because we think the interests of the community lie in him contributing
to the community by working in it constructively, discharging his debt to
society and serving his punishment through the many, many hours of work he will
have to do under the community service order that we will impose upon him. It will take him some 2 years to
complete the number of hours provide assuming those hours are available.
7.
Taking ecstacy
is not a harmless activity, which we are sure the defendant recognises. It often results in death or near death
and you have become perilously close to serving a substantial sentence of
imprisonment, but in all these circumstances we are going to give you a
chance. If you ever come before us
again on offences of this kind you will almost certainly be sent to
prison. Do you understand that?
8.
On Count 1
you are sentenced to 456 hours’ Community Service, which is equivalent of
3 years imprisonment. On Count 2
you are sentenced to 45 hours’ Community Service, which is equivalent to
2 weeks imprisonment concurrent, which makes a total of 456 hours community
service to be completed within 2 years.
9.
We order
the destruction of the controlled substances seized in this case.
Authorities
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999
Bonnar
& Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626.
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey)
Law 2014
Campbell
and Ors.-v-Attorney General [1995] JLR 136.
Attorney
General-v-Fernandes [2009] JRC 197.
Attorney
General-v-Howard [2015] JRC 066.
Attorney
General-v-Munks [2017] JRC 170.