Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - reasons for the sentence imposed.

[2023]JRC210

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 November 2023

The Attorney General

-v-

Ian Monteith Manson

Andrew Ernest Louis

Ms C. L. G. Carvalho, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for Defendant Manson.

Advocate N. B. R. Miére for Defendant Louis.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Ian Monteith Manson and Andrew Ernest Louis appeared before this Court to be sentenced with regard, in the case of Manson, to one count of possession of a controlled drug and two counts of being concerned in the production of a controlled drug (AG v Manson and Louis [2023] JRC 025).  In the case of Louis, he was facing two counts of being concerned in the production of a controlled drug. 

2.        The Crown moved, with regard to Manson, for the following sentences:

(i)        Count 1 - possession of a controlled drug: 6 months imprisonment;

(ii)       Count 2 - production of a controlled drug: 9 months imprisonment;

(iii)      Count 3 - production of a controlled drug: 18 months imprisonment

all to run concurrently making a total of 18 months imprisonment.  With regard to Louis, the Crown moved for:

(i)        Count 2 - being concerned with the production of a controlled drug: 9 months imprisonment;

(ii)       Count 3 - being concerned with the production of a controlled drug: 2 years imprisonment

all concurrent, making a total of 2 years imprisonment.

3.        We granted the conclusions moved for by the Crown save that, with regard to Manson, we suspended his sentence for a period of 2 years.  These, in brief, are our reasons.

4.        The facts of this matter are as follows.  A member of staff at St Saviour's Hospital contacted the police on 29 September 2021 because two men had been acting suspiciously on hospital grounds.  On 1 October, officers of the drugs squad attended St Saviour's Hospital where they met the member of staff who had first made contact with them.  A search of the hospital grounds was conducted and within a wooded area adjacent to the main road, the officers found a cannabis plant that was approximately 7 feet tall.  A second cannabis plant of a similar height, together with gardening equipment, was also located in the area.  Covert cameras were installed at the site.

5.        On 4 October, all but one of the cameras were recovered and CCTV footage from St Saviour's Hospital showed both of the Defendants in the area on 29 September 2021 and Manson visiting the site on 3 October.

6.        On 4 October, the police attended Manson's address and arrested him on suspicion of the cultivation of cannabis and larceny in relation to the missing camera.  Amongst other things seized was plant material from the bedroom floor and four jars of green plant material within a rucksack.

7.        The jars contained herbal cannabis which was in the process of being dried and trimmed and was believed to be from the St Saviour's Hospital site.

8.        In interview, Manson accepted that he had cultivated the cannabis plants for personal use.  He accepted he had set up a watering system and he thought that the plants had a potential yield of about 500 grams.

9.        Louis was arrested on 4 October and interviewed and released on police bail on the same day.  He denied having anything to do with the cannabis plants and confirmed that he had known Manson, who when he had been seen together with him in a car was giving him a lift somewhere, "for a good few years".

10.      On 5 October, drugs squad officers attended a different area in St Saviour and behind a small brick building they located a pathway between the building and two disused greenhouses.  Officers located various gardening equipment and a small cannabis plant and there was a strong smell of cannabis emanating from the area.  A further clearing located nearby revealed several well-established large cannabis plants using a similar rain-watering system that had been set up at the St Saviour's Hospital site.  While officers were searching the area they caught Louis crawling towards the grow site.  He was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interview and after caution, he confirmed that he was there "to shake the water off the plants".  A further search of the area located a battery-powered camera, the footage from which showed Manson entering the site on five separate occasions.

11.      On interview, Louis said that he had no intention of selling any of the cannabis although said he might have given a bit to a friend.

12.      The cannabis seized would have a total dried weight of between 263.07 grams and 333.07 grams with an estimated street value of between £7,890 and £13,320.  The additional cannabis seized from the St Saviour's Hospital site would have generated, it was assessed, between £7,500 and £12,800 if sold at street level.  There was no evidence, however, of either of the accused being involved in the supply of cannabis.

13.      The case of AG v Thompson [2015] JRC 165 was placed before us in which the Court had regard to the case of Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 as guidance as to how to treat a growing offence although, of course, that offence did not specifically deal with the growing of cannabis.

14.      The guideline from Campbell indicates a starting point of between two and six years imprisonment for quantities between 1 kilogram and 10 kilograms.  The position of a particular Defendant within these bands is to be determined by reference to the weight of the drugs and the Defendant's role and involvement.  The value, whilst of less significance, should also be considered.

15.      In the case of Thompson mentioned above, the accused had entered guilty pleas to the production of 12 cannabis plants which would have yielded a street value between £5,040 to £25,200.  There was no suggestion of supply other than the potential for social supply in that case.

16.      The Court there considered whether or not to impose community service rather than custodial sentence and said this:

"We think in the circumstances of the case that it is right, given the continuing breach of the law and given your age, you obviously did know better, that we need to impose a custodial sentence and for those reasons the Crown's conclusions are granted".

17.      The Court there imposed a sentence of 15 months and 12 months imprisonment concurrent for the production of 12 cannabis plants and for possession of drug paraphernalia respectively.

18.      With regard to Manson, we observe that he has a poor criminal record of some 44 offences including 5 drugs offences.  He attempted to dispose of or conceal evidence because he threw away the covert camera and he used premises to which he had no lawful access.  By way of mitigation, acknowledged by the Crown, Manson pleaded guilty at his first appearance and is entitled to full credit.  He was co-operative in interview with regard to Counts 1 and 2.  With regard to Count 3, whilst he also entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity, he was less co-operative.  His basis of plea sought to minimise his involvement although he withdrew his basis of plea and falls to be sentenced on the Crown's version of the facts.  It is accepted that the cannabis was for his own personal use and that also is a mitigating factor.

19.      With regard to Louis, his record is described by the Crown as appalling and we can only agree with that description.  He has convictions for 159 offences of which 28 were for drugs offences including a conviction in October 2017 for the production of cannabis, possession of cannabis and being concerned in the supply of cannabis.

20.      Again, he had no right of lawful access to the premises he used.

21.      By way of mitigation identified by the Crown he, too, had entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity to Count 2 and has received the benefit of full credit for that plea.  He only entered a guilty plea to Count 3 on his second appearance in the Magistrate's Court but again, full credit should be allowed because he changed his plea once a lawyer was appointed to him.  He could not be said to be co-operative in the first interview and initially denied his involvement after providing limited admissions.  It is accepted that the drugs were for his own personal use.

22.      In the pre-sentencing reports, Manson was assessed at being at a high risk of reconviction within a 12-month period and unsuitable for community service.  With regard to Louis, he is described as having a very high risk of reconviction and is also assessed as unsuitable for community service.

23.      Counsel for Manson, Advocate Baglin, argued that the Crown's conclusions were too high and that greater emphasis should be placed on personal mitigation including the references received for his client.  He argued that his client had been drug-free for some time and wishes to remain abstinent.  He confirmed that his client is making serious efforts to do so.  It appears from the reports before us that he is vulnerable to some forms of abuse.  Notwithstanding his record, he had some significant personal mitigation available to him and reference was made to a long military career and service in a hostile environment.  He also has a number of health difficulties and it is argued before us that the sentence could properly be suspended.  He has an enormous amount to lose by re-offending.

24.      For Louis, Advocate Miére also argued that the sentence should be lower and, as was argued for Manson, the fact that all of the cannabis was for personal use is of significance.

25.      We have not set out all of the arguments placed before us by Counsel for the Defendants in this case.  It is quite clear that the poor record of both of them and the value of the cannabis means, to our mind, that a custodial sentence is inevitable.

26.      Having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, the former as identified by the Crown and the latter including the guilty pleas, personal use and personal circumstances of the Defendants, we did not think that the sentence moved for by the Crown was in any way excessive or inappropriate.

27.      With regard to Manson, however, we accepted that he wished to find a way to be free of these drugs and further accepted that he had particular vulnerabilities.  We wished to see whether we could provide an environment in which he could put his drug use behind him and accordingly, although we imposed the sentenced moved for by the Crown, in his case only we suspended it for a period of 2 years.

Authorities

AG v Manson and Louis [2023] JRC 025. 

AG v Thompson [2015] JRC 165. 

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136