Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/48

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

22^nd  February 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Lee Lewis Le Lai

 

FIRST INDICTMENT

2 counts of:	possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 1: cannabis resin. Count 2: heroin.
1 count of:	possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply to another, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 3: heroin.
1 count of:	supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 4: cannabis resin
1 count of:	assisting another to retain benefits of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 17(1)(a) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law, 1988: Count 5.
1 count of:	being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 6: heroin

 

SECOND INDICTMENT

2 counts of:

possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 1: cannabis resin. Count 2: cannabis resin.

 

Age:     22

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

Following the execution of a search warrant 30 grams of cannabis resin with a street value of approx. £175 and 1.18 grams of heroin with a street value of approx. £350 was discovered in a tin underneath an armchair in the lounge of premises frequented by the accused.  During a question and answer interview the accused admitted being in possession of the cannabis resin, but stated that he was holding the heroin on behalf of a dealer to whom he would be returning same.  The accused made further admissions of supplying approx. 5 ozs. of cannabis resin to friends over a previous six month period and to collecting approx. £1,000 on behalf of a dealer.  Whilst on bail for the aforementioned offences the accused was on two occasions found in possession of personal quantities of cannabis resin (counts 1 & 2 of the second indictment).

 

Details of Mitigation:

The accused's guilty plea; his full and frank admissions to the police; he wrote his own indictment in relation to the more serious counts, namely, possession of heroin with intent to supply, the supply of cannabis resin and assisting another to obtain the benefits of drug trafficking; his youth; he openly named his suppliers; his efforts to wean himself from drugs prior to his arrest and his successful subsequent efforts to become drug-free; he was genuinely remorseful.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

 

Conclusions:

A one year supervised probation order was imposed with the condition that the accused attends the alcohol and drug service as required by that service; undergoes treatment for drugs dependency; abstains from the use of all illicit drugs, and he will be subject to random urinalysis.  The forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  Open naming of suppliers enabled Court to treat as exceptional case.

 

 

P Matthews,  Esq.,Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Le Lai has pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply 1.18 grams of heroin which he was looking after for a dealer.  `He has also admitted the supply of five ounces of cannabis resin over a six month period and to collecting up to £1,000 on behalf of a dealer in relation to that dealer's sale of cannabis resin.  He has also pleaded guilty to various counts of possession of cannabis resin for his personal use.

2.        However, a number of matters are urged in mitigation.  The defendant has pleaded guilty; he wrote his own indictment on the more serious charges; significantly, he has made determined efforts to turn his life around and to conquer his drug dependency.  Indeed, this case has been hanging over the defendant since June/July, 2000, and it has taken too long to come to Court.  Nevertheless during that period the defendant has remained drug free, found employment, and generally made efforts to turn his life around.  He has received strong support from his family and friends and from his employer.  We have received references and they all support the belief that this is a turning point for this young man.

3.        All of this might not necessarily have been sufficient to avoid a custodial sentence for these offences because the Court's policy is clear, but what has been decisive is the fact, Le Lai, that, when interviewed, you named your suppliers and you are willing for this to be stated in open court.  That is very much to your credit.  This Court has repeatedly said that it will give a very substantial discount to those who are willing to give information in order to fight the scourge of drug trafficking in Jersey.  Because of that, therefore, we are willing to go along with the conclusions of the Crown.  The sentence of the Court, therefore, is that you are placed on probation for 1 year and during that time there will be a condition that you attend the alcohol and drug service as required by that service; that you remain abstinent from controlled drugs and you will be subject to random urine tests.

4.        The Court is giving you the opportunity, Le Lai.  Should you fall back into your drug habits, or should you commit other offences, or should you fail to do what you are told by your probation officer or by the alcohol and drug service, then you will be brought back here and you must understand that the punishment is very likely to be a prison sentence.  We further order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

Authorities

A.G. -v- Burns (2nd February, 2001) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Casey (6th February, 2001) Jersey Unreported