Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession and supply - Class A and
Class B
[2020]JRC076
Royal Court
(Samedi)
30 April 2020
|
Before :
|
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats
Olsen, Austin-Vautier and Averty
|
The Attorney General
-v-
James Andrew Mayo
Sentencing by the
Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the
Inferior Number on 31st January, 2020 following guilty pleas to the
following charges:
|
2 counts 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 and Count 2).
|
|
2 counts of:
|
Being concerned in the supplying of, or in
the making of an offer to supply, a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c)
of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3 and Count 4).
|
Age: 23.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 4th October, 2019, the
defendant was arrested for malicious damage. Whilst in police custody, during a
search, two lumps of cannabis resin with a total weight of 53.81 grams and
22.64 grams of MDMA were found in his sock.
Following an analysis of his mobile
phone, text messages were recovered identifying the defendant to be involved in
street level supply of both cannabis and MDMA to a select group of associates.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas, good character,
admissions in interview, difficult upbringing, little parental support,
undiagnosed learning difficulty and still a young man.
Previous Convictions:
None, except for a written
caution from a Parish hall for possession of MDMA.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
Starting point 8 years’
imprisonment. 5 years’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
6 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 3:
|
Starting point 7 years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 4:
|
4 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 5 years’ imprisonment.
Declaration of benefit sought in
the sum of £6,615.00
Confiscation Order sought in the
sum of £1.00
Forfeiture and destruction of the
drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1:
|
Starting point 8 years’ imprisonment. 3 years’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
6 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 3:
|
Starting point 7 years’
imprisonment. 3 years’
imprisonment concurrent.
|
|
Count 4:
|
4 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 3 years’ imprisonment.
Declaration of benefit
made in the sum of £6,615.00
Confiscation Order
made in the sum of £1.00
Forfeiture and
destruction of the drugs ordered.
R. C. P. Pedley, Esq. Crown Advocate.
Advocate L. V. Marks for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1.
James
Andrew Mayo, you are 23 years old and fall to be sentenced today in relation to
four offences involving controlled drugs; two offences of possession with
intent to supply, ecstasy and cannabis resin respectively, and two offences of
being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, again ecstasy and cannabis
respectively.
2.
On 4th
October, 2019, you came to the attention of the police when you fell over into
several motorbikes near Sand Street car park because you were, in the
assessment of the officer who arrested you, under the influence of drink or
drugs.
3.
You were
arrested for malicious damage. At
the police station when you were searched ecstasy and cannabis were found in
your left sock. The cannabis resin
weighed just under 2 ounces, 53.81 grams, with a street value of between
£795 and £1,060. The
ecstasy was in two bags totalling 22.64 grams, the purity of each bag being 47
per cent and 81 per cent respectively.
The street value of the MDMA was between £1,320 and
£2,200. Accordingly, the minimum
value of the two quantities of drugs seized was £2,115.
4.
You were
interviewed by the police. You
declined legal advice. You fully
admitted that you had had cannabis and ecstasy upon you, and that was before
the results of the relevant drug tests came back. You said that you had purchased the
drugs for £700 because you were stocking up as a heavy user of cannabis
and MDMA. You said that the drugs
were for your personal use, save that on occasion you might give a small
quantity to friends.
5.
Investigation
of your mobile telephone messages revealed that what you said to the police in
respect of your supply to friends was false. It was clear from the evidence, and
accepted by you through your counsel today, that you had been selling both
ecstasy and cannabis to associates of yours. The period covered by the supply counts
on the indictment is just over one month.
There is evidence of you supplying ecstasy to one customer and a
reference to previous supply to them.
There is also reference to you selling cannabis and, indeed, putting
pressure on a customer of yours who owed you £550. There is also evidence of a dealer list
on your phone, created on the 20th August, 2019.
6.
Today we
have heard from your counsel in relation to the sums contained on that dealer
list and, in summary, we now know that you owed two people supplying you with
drugs a total of £4,500, and that there were three further individuals to
whom you had sold drugs. The sums
that they owed you ranged from £60 to £550, so in total there were
five individuals to whom you were selling drugs during this period.
7.
Accordingly,
you are to be sentenced as a street dealer in cannabis and ecstasy. As to the starting point for the
principal counts on the indictment, namely Counts 1 and 3, which deal with your
possession with intent to supply of MDMA and your being concerned in the supply
of MDMA respectively, we have had regard to the case of Rimmer v AG
[2001] JLR 373. Having regard to
the weight of the drugs at Count 1, we and indeed your counsel, accept the
Crown’s assessment that the appropriate starting point is 8 years’
imprisonment. We agree with the
Crown that we should not increase that starting point by reference to the
degree of purity being in excess of 75 per cent as, overall, when one averages
the two quantities of MDMA, the overall purity was lower than this.
8.
As to your
being concerned in the supply of ecstasy, we note the starting point of 7 to 9
years for 1 to 20 grams under Rimmer and, in view of the evidence of
supply in this case, we accept the Crown’s assessment of the starting
point as being 7 years’ imprisonment for Count 3. Again, your counsel on your behalf does
not challenge that as being the starting point for the offence at Count 3.
9.
We do not
regard it as necessary to fix starting points for the two cannabis offences
and, accordingly, we do not do so.
We give you full credit for your guilty plea, for the admissions you did
make to the police, and we treat you as a man of good character.
10. The Probation Officer regards you as being at
high risk of reconviction. Although
you were working at the time of your arrest, you had no fixed
accommodation. We know that you had
a difficult up-bringing, with your parents separating when you were young. Indeed, from the age of about 16
onwards, you were without any parental support at all in Jersey. We also know that you had an undiagnosed
learning difficulty which prevented you from doing well at school. We have read the report of Dr Briggs, a
forensic psychologist and a clinical psychologist, and we have considered his
conclusions. We note in particular
the real challenges that you have experienced, and continue to experience, in
relation to verbal comprehension, in relation to memory and in relation to
“processing speed”, as he
describes it.
11. You have unfortunately abused alcohol,
cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine on and off over the last few years, and you told
the probation officer “I enjoy
taking drugs and always knew it would come to this”. It is sad that, even with that
knowledge, knowledge of what your future might hold, you offended in the way
that you did. The truth is that
without street dealers, those who make a living as suppliers of controlled
drugs to people like you would not be able to make a living. You are a key link in the chain of
supply from importer to addict.
12. We have listened with care to all that your
counsel has said, and we note the Probation Officer says that there is support
that you need. She refers to
support in relation to basic skills, literary assessment, one-to-one work
regarding your substance abuse, offending behaviour work to help you with
decision-making, problem-solving and consequential thinking. We have heard from the Probation Officer
in evidence today that much of the work that could be carried out under a
probation order can in fact be commenced in custody. We have heard that there is at the
prison an education department which will give you the skills that you need to
improve your literary capabilities, that there is an offending behaviour
programme available and that the prison psychology team can offer you
one-to-one offending behaviour work.
All this work which you can do in custody will give you a framework to
help you live your life when you are released.
13. Your counsel urged on your behalf a
non-custodial sentence in your case but we regard these offences as so serious
that only a custodial sentence can be justified. In view of your age and the fact that
you are still, not only a man of good character but a man the Court feels that
could have a bright future in front of you, we are substantially reducing the
Crown’s conclusions which, as you know, sought a total sentence of five
years’ imprisonment.
14. The sentences that the Court imposes today are
as follows: Count 1, 3 years’ imprisonment. Count 2, 6 months’ imprisonment
concurrent. Count 3, 3 years’
imprisonment concurrent, and Count 4, 4 months’ imprisonment concurrent,
making a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.
15. We make a destruction order in relation to the
drugs and
16. We certify that, pursuant to the Proceeds of
Crime (Jersey) Law 1999, you have benefitted from criminal conduct in the
sum of £6,615.
17. We make a nominal confiscation order in the sum
of £1.
Authorities
Rimmer
v AG [2001] JLR 373.
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.
McDonough
v AG, [1994] JLR Notes 7a
Campbell
v AG [1995] JLR 136
AG
v Antunes & Ors [2003] JRC 072
AG
v Gilbraith & Rawlinson [2017] JRC 155
AG
v Benyoucef [2019] JRC 124
AG
v Taylor [2019] (1) JLR N [2];
AG
v Taylor [2019] JRC 022
AG
v Taylor [2019] JRC 027