Jersey Judgment

AG v Barr [2003] JRC 042 (21 February 2003)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Defendant

Crown Advocate

Prosecution Counsel: Crown Advocate

Amounts and remedies

  • Value of Cannabis: GBP 8.5
  • Sentence Imposed: 3
  • Existing Sentence: 9

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2003] JRC 042

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

A. G. -v- Miah (12 January 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001/11]

Case cited

Roberts (1997) 2 Cr. App. R (S) 187

Case cited

Appleton [1999] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 289

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.