Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC032

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th February 2008

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Ernest Louis

Benjamin Ernest Phillips

And

C

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

Andrew Ernest Louis

1 count of:	Being concerned in the production of a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of utensils for the purposes of committing an offence contrary to Article 10 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 3).
3 counts of	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Counts 4, 5 and 6).

Age:  36.

Plea: Guilty (Not guilty on Count 6 - plea accepted).

Details of Offence:

On 15^th June, 2007 Louis was stopped by police and searched.  Several small lumps of cannabis resin, weighing a total or 3.69 grams, were seized (Count 4).

During 4^th September, 2007 a policeman observed Louis rolling a joint and stopped him.  He seized the cannabis from him, weighing 691 milligrams (Count 5).

On 5^th September, 2007 officers attended C's home address.  On arrival the officers located several small pieces of cannabis in the kitchen, and found C in his room.  C's room was searched, and further pieces of cannabis resin were located.  In total the cannabis seized weighed around 1½ grams (Count 9).

On 6^th September, 2007, police officers located a cannabis plantation in Bellozane Valley.  In total 31 plants were found on the site, with a height range of between 4 and 8 feet.  An improvised water butt had also been created.  The site was placed under observation by the police.

On Sunday 9^th September, 2007 C was observed arriving at the site and was arrested carrying a white plastic bag containing freshly picked cannabis leaf buds.

A police expert has calculated that the average crop potential from the 31 plants would have been between 62 and 93 ounces of herbal cannabis (equating to 1.7 to 2.6 kilograms) with a wholesale value in Jersey in the region of £8,556 and £12,834 respectively and a street value in the region of £12,400 and £18,600 respectively.

A search was subsequently conducted at C's home address.  This resulted in 9.59 grams of herbal cannabis being seized (Count 10).

During subsequent interviews C stated he had been taken to the plantation site by Louis, but had never watered the plants or tended them.  He said that he had been to the site twice subsequently to steal some cuttings for his personal use (Count 1).

C then admitted that during the summer of 2007 he had sold up to 4 ounces of cannabis resin for a third party and stated that he had earned around £10 per ounce that he sold (Count 2).

On 10^th September, 2007 Louis was arrested and cautioned on suspicion of cultivating cannabis.  His home address was searched and various items involved in the cultivation of cannabis plants were seized (Count 3).  Two pieces of cannabis were also found which together weighed a total of 46.48 grams (Count 6).

During interview Louis stated that he had accidentally found the clearing in Bellozane Valley but denied planting the 31 cannabis plants.  However, he admitted watering them for a couple of months with the intention of stealing "four or five" once they were mature.

On 10^th September, 2007 Phillips was arrested on suspicion of the cultivation of cannabis.  A mobile phone was seized from him as well as a personal amount of cannabis (152 milligrams)(Count 8).  His home address was searched and several mobile phones were seized.  Phillips' mobile telephone contained a digital photograph of the mother cannabis plant in situ at the plantation.

Phillips maintained throughout interview that he had never been to the plantation site and had no involvement in its creation.  He did however confirm that he had collected plastic 2 litre bottles for Louis, knowing that Louis was going to use them to transport water to and subsequently water the cannabis plants at the plantation site.

Phillips stated that the site had been looked after by Louis.

Phillips admitted that he had allowed cannabis plants to be grown by other people in the loft of the premises he used to occupy (Count 7).

Louis' offending put him in breach of an 18 month Royal Court Probation Order made in July 2006, when he was sentenced in relation inter alia to possession of heroin with intent to supply the same, and also a 12 month Probation Order made in the Magistrate's Court in January 2007 in relation to an offence of obstruction.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty please, limited involvement on Count 1.

Previous Convictions:

22 convictions comprising 140 offences, 15 of which are drug related and include trafficking offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.

Breach offences 2006

Original order discharged.

Count 1:	No separate penalty.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent to current Indictment.
Count 4:	No separate penalty.

Breach offences 2007

Original order discharged.

Refusing to obey - no separate penalty.

Total: 3 years' 8 month's imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.

Breach offences 2006.

Original order discharged.

Count 1:	No separate penalty.
Count 3:	No separate penalty.
Count 4:	No separate penalty.

Breach offences 2007

Original order discharged.

Refusing to obey - no separate penalty.

Total: 2 years' 2 month's imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Benjamin Ernest Phillips

1 count of:	Being concerned in the production of a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary at Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 2)
1 count of:	Permitting premises to be used for the production of a controlled drug contrary to Article 11 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 7).
1 count of	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 8).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty (Not guilty on Count 2 - plea accepted).

Details of Offence:

See Louis above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, limited involvement on Count 1, wrote own indictment on Count 7 and small amount in Count 8.

Previous Convictions:

12 previous convictions comprising 20 offences; none being drug related.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 month Probation Order and 180 hours' Community Service Order, 12 months' imprisonment in default.
Count 7:	120 hours' Community Service Order, 6 months' imprisonment in default, concurrent.
Count 8:	45 hours' Community Service Order, 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, concurrent.

Total: 18 month Probation Order and 180 hours' Community Service Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	18 month Probation Order.
Count 7:	18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 8:	18 month Probation Order, concurrent.

Total: 18 month Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

C

1 count of:	Being concerned in the production of a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary at Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 2).
2 counts of	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Counts 9 and 10).

Age:  17.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Louis above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, youth, admissions and cooperation, technical offence on Count 1, wrote own indictment on Count 2.

Previous Convictions:

6 previous convictions comprising 13 offences; none being drug related.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 month Probation Order and 180 hours' Community Service Order, 12 months' Youth Detention in default.
Count 2:	18 month Probation Order and 180 hours' Community Service Order, 12 months' Youth Detention in default, concurrent.
Count 9:	45 hours' Community Service Order, 2 weeks' Youth Detention in default, concurrent.
Count 10:	45 hours' Community Service Order, 2 weeks' Youth Detention in default, concurrent.

Total: 18 month Probation Order and 180 hours' Community Service Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	18 month Probation Order.
Count 2:	18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 9:	18 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 10:	18 month Probation Order, concurrent.

Total: 18 month Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. J. L. Buckley for Louis.

Advocate N. S. H. Benest for Phillips.

Advocate J. C. Gollop for C.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        These defendants are before the Court for sentence in relation to various drug offences and in particular, offences relating to the growing of cannabis plants and the production of cannabis in technical terms.  Growing cannabis plants requires a quite deliberate and continuing intention to break the law and it is a serious offence for that reason alone.  It is clear in this case that the plants, if they had grown to maturity, would have produced a significant quantity of strong cannabis with a street value of not less than £10,000.

2.        We deal now with the individuals. Louis has a long record of previous convictions and has been involved with drugs for more than 20 years.  He is well aware of the likely consequences of breaking the law in this way.  He is in breach of a Probation Order made by this Court in July 2006 but, on the other hand, was within 3 months of successfully completing it. 

3.        Louis, as the Crown Advocate rightly pointed out, it is a shame that you did not complete the Probation Order entirely but we have read the probation report very carefully and it is clear that you did in fact, successfully complete the Smart programme.  You co-operated well with the probation service, you attended for your appointments and, but for the offences on this indictment, everything would have worked out successfully, so we share the regret of the Crown Advocate that you could not keep away from cannabis in the way that has been shown.  But we want to encourage you Louis, and we are not going to impose any additional penalty for the breach of the probation order because we take the view that, in substance, you did succeed in completing it.

4.        Now having said that, we have to punish you for the offences which you have admitted on the current indictment.  We think that the conclusions are correct and you are sentenced on count 1 to 2 years' imprisonment; on count 2 to 4 months' imprisonment concurrent; on count 4 to 1 month's imprisonment consecutive; count 5 to 1 month's imprisonment consecutive; making a total of 2 years' and 2 months' imprisonment.

5.        Phillips, we accept the submissions of your Advocate that you were on the edge of this offending and that the offences for which you have to be sentenced are at the lower end of the scale.  We note that you did in fact successfully complete your previous Community Service Order after it had been extended.  We have been impressed particularly by being told that you have been in employment for the last eighteen months and we are glad to hear that you have a relationship with a young woman which we hope will help you to make something of your life in the future.  It is encouraging that you have that relationship and we hope that you do understand that you are going to cause a great deal of upset and a great deal of pain to others if you do break the law in the future.  You need to choose your company carefully so that you do not let down those who mean something to you.  We are going to amend slightly the conclusions because we do not think that it is necessary to impose a Community Service Order on you and we are going to order you to be placed on probation for 18 month's subject to the usual conditions that you live and work as directed by your probation officer and follow the plan which has been set out for you by the Probation service. 

6.        C, we understand that you have had a difficult start in life but you do stand on the edge of much more serious offending than you have been involved in so far.  You have had to stand on your own feet at a very young age.  That means that you have to act responsibly and again, you need to choose your company with great care.  We agree with the comments of your counsel and we think that to require you to carry out courses under the direction of the probation service would be a sufficient punishment for the offences that you have committed.  We note that you are motivated to change and we hope that motivation will stay with you.  We are going to place you on probation for a period of 18 months on each of the offences subject to the usual conditions that you live and work as directed by the Probation Service and that you carry out all the courses which the Probation Service will lay down for you.

7.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

No Authorities