AG v Barr [2003] JRC 042 (21 February 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] JRC 042
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
A meaningful custodial sentence is required for drug possession in prison, but due to the guilty plea and prosecutorial error, the sentence will be concurrent with the existing sentence.
Court disposition
convicted
Orders
- 3 months' imprisonment concurrent with existing 9-year sentence
02
Material facts
Parties
Unknown Defendant
DefendantCrown Advocate
Prosecution Counsel: Crown AdvocateAmounts and remedies
- Value of Cannabis: GBP 8.5
- Sentence Imposed: 3
- Existing Sentence: 9
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentencing for drug possession in prison
- 02
concurrency of sentences due to prosecutorial error
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant pleaded guilty and referenced the prosecutorial error and the value of the guilty plea.
- Respondent
- The Crown Advocate moved for a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
A. G. -v- Miah (12 January 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001/11]
Possession of drugs in prison is a serious offence warranting a custodial sentence, generally consecutive to other sentences.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
A meaningful custodial sentence is required for drug possession in prison, but due to the guilty plea and prosecutorial error, the sentence will be concurrent with the existing sentence.
Obiter and limits
- Circumstances suggested another individual may have been involved.
- Possession of drugs in prison will generally lead to consecutive sentences.
Court disposition
convicted
- 3 months' imprisonment concurrent with existing 9-year sentence
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. This defendant has pleaded guilty to possession whilst on remand at La Moye Prison of a small personal quantity of cannabis valued at about £8.50. The facts are unimportant except that the circumstances of the defendant's apprehension might have led an objective observer to suspect that another individual was just as closely involved in the offence as the defendant. Be that at it may, the defendant was charged with this offence in July, 2002. Unfortunately, as a result of an error on the part of the prosecution, it was not dealt with at the same time as other offences involving the trafficking of Class A drugs for which the defendant was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment in December, 2002.
2. The Court wishes to make it quite clear that the possession of drugs in La Moye Prison is a very serious offence which will inevitably lead to a custodial sentence which in the generality will be consecutive to any other sentence which is imposed upon that prisoner.
3. The Court agrees with the observations of the Deputy Bailiff in A. G. -v- Miah (12 January 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001/11] when the Court stated that a sentence imposed for possession of drugs at La Moye Prison must be a meaningful sentence. We do not consider that the sentence of 1 month's imprisonment moved for by the Crown Advocate is a meaningful sentence. We propose therefore to increase the conclusions to a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment.
4. Having said that, the particular circumstances of this case, in particular the value of the guilty plea to which both counsel have referred, and the mistake on the part of the prosecution which led to this not being dealt with when it should have been in December, 2002, have persuaded us that we should, exceptionally, make the sentence concurrent with the sentence already being served.
5. The sentence of the Court, therefore, is one of 3 months' imprisonment but it will be concurrent to the existing sentence of 9 years imprisonment. Authorities Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2 nd Ed'n): pp.81-85. Roberts (1997) 2 Cr. App. R (S) 187. Appleton [1999] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 289. A. G. -v- Miah (12 th January, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/11]. Page Last Updated: 23 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.