Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC003

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

5^th January 2007

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

David Henry James Smith aka Aldridge

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to:

1 count of:	Possession of Nandrelone contrary to Article 8 (1) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of Testosterone contrary to Article 8 (1) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of Clenbuterol contrary to Article 8 (1) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 3).
1 count of:	Possession of Stanozolol contrary to Article 8 (1) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 4).
1 count of:	Possession of Ecstasy contrary to Article 8 (1) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 5).
1 count of:	Possession of Stanozolol contrary to Article 8 (1) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 6).
1 count of:	Possession of Testosterone contrary to Article 8 (1) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 7).
1 count of:	Possession of Nandrelone contrary to Article 8 (1) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 1).

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 23^rd September 2005, a drugs warrant was executed at Defendant's home when a number of syringes and suspected steroids were seized.  No further action was taken regarding these drugs at the time.  In June, 2006, a second search warrant was obtained and further suspected steroids were seized.  The Defendant was arrested.  He admitted that there were ecstasy tablets in his works' van.  Seventeen and a half ecstasy tablets were found.  The Defendant was candid at interview.  He was a body builder and claimed he did not know possession of steroids was illegal.  He used the ecstasy during his work as a disc jockey consuming up to fifteen tablets in one night but not using them every weekend.  It was accepted by the Crown that the ecstasy tablets were for personal use.  They had a street value of approximately £170.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, co-operation with the police, good character, relatively small amount, had attended Alcohol and Drugs Service on nine occasions, gave drug testing samples, all of which were negative.  Good employment record, use of spare time constructively, remorse.  Delay in bringing charges following first search was significant and Defendant thus thought possession of steroids was not illegal and purchased more. (Counts 6 - 8).

Previous Convictions:

No relevant previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	90 hours' community service (equivalent sentence 3 months' imprisonment).
Count 2:	90 hours' community service, concurrent.
Count 3:	90 hours' community service, concurrent.
Count 4:	90 hours' community service, concurrent.
Count 5:	180 hours' community service, concurrent.
Count 6:	90 hours' community service, concurrent.
Count 7:	90 hours' community service, concurrent.
Count 8:	90 hours' community service, concurrent.

Total 180 hours' community service.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1 - 4 and 6 - 8:	Conclusions granted.
Count 5:	120 hours' community service, concurrent (equivalent sentence 6 months' imprisonment).

Total 120 hours' community service or 6 months' imprisonment.

Costs application refused.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Ecstasy is a potentially dangerous drug, and it is a Class A drug, and those who use it must accept the risks of a custodial sentence being imposed or at the very least some penalty.  That, we think, is particularly the case where the defendant is a disc jockey occupying a position of influence with young people.  Disc jockeys should not be involved in any way in the misuse of drugs.

2.        Having said that, the Court accepts that in your case there is a great deal of mitigation and we accept that you recognise that you have brought shame upon yourself.  You have let down your family and, in particular your fiancée, and your actions have had very adverse affects on others.

3.        We also accept that you are of previous good character.  You have placed very good references before the Court and we are sure, having looked at them, that you have indeed learned your lesson and that we shall not see you again.

4.        We have also taken into account the delay in dealing with the matter, which has not been explained but which we think is at the very least unfortunate.  We take all those matters into account and we are going to reduce the conclusions slightly and you will be sentenced on the count to which you have pleaded guilty to 120 hours' community service, to be performed to the satisfaction of the community service organiser and we state that the alternative sentence, if that community service is not satisfactorily performed, is one of 6 months' imprisonment. 

5.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  So far as the application for costs is concerned I have not been addressed upon the law, but in the exercise of my discretion, it does not appear to me to be an appropriate case for the ordering of costs against the prosecution and that application is accordingly dismissed.

No Authorities