AG v Batt [2005] JRC 010 (21 January 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 010
- 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
The sentence was reduced to 3 years due to mercy and mitigation, despite the seriousness of the offence and Batt's criminal history, with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 3 years imprisonment
- forfeiture and destruction of drugs
02
Material facts
Parties
Batt
Defendant Counsel: Miss JusteCrown Advocate
ProsecutorAmounts and remedies
- Quantity of Cannabis: 8,483
- Street Value of Cannabis: GBP 50,400
- Sentence Imposed: 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for importation of cannabis
- 02
consideration of mitigation due to health and dependency
- 03
impact of guilty plea
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Miss Juste argued for mitigation based on Batt's partner's health and dependency, and highlighted his guilty plea and lack of prior drug offences.
- Respondent
- Crown Advocate requested a starting point of 5 years based on the quantity of drugs and Batt's criminal history.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Campbell and Ors -v- A. G [1995JLR136]
Sentencing guidelines for drug importation offences
- 02
A. G. v Valler [2002JLR383]
Consideration of mitigation for health and dependency
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The sentence was reduced to 3 years due to mercy and mitigation, despite the seriousness of the offence and Batt's criminal history, with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Obiter and limits
- The guilty plea was not of great value due to circumstances.
- The defendant's health and dependency mitigation was carefully considered but viewed as a cynical attempt.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 3 years imprisonment
- forfeiture and destruction of drugs
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 COMMISSIONER: 1. Batt is a 70 year old married man with grown up children. He has separated from his wife and lives with a partner who has serious health problems. She is suffering from a severe heart condition and has had a heart operation. She is apparently heavily reliant upon him.
2. He has what can only be described as a very bad criminal record. He has 22 convictions for 43 offences. It is true to say that he has run the gamut of punishments. In 1977, he received a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for conspiracy and robbery. In 1983, he was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment for armed robbery and conspiracy to rob.
3. He was released on parole after ten years. To his credit, he has not appeared before any Court between his release on parole in 1994 and his appearance for this offence. As Miss Juste has pointed out, he has not in that long criminal career committed a drug related offence.
4. The offence with which he is charged today is depressingly familiar. He was stopped by a Customs Officer driving a pink Mercedes Benz car, at the Elizabeth Terminal on the 20 th October, 2004. He said he had been to England to visit a friend and had brought the car for £4000.
5. When cannabis was discovered in the boot of the car, he said " That's it. You've got it ", and he informed the Customs Officer that the 'it' he was referring to was in fact cannabis. The amount was disturbingly large, 8,483 grams with a street value of some £50,400.00. He will not, of course, name his contacts.
6. The starting point in Campbell and Ors -v- A. G [1995JLR136] gives a starting point of 2 - 6 years, and in this case, the Crown Advocate has asked for a starting point of 5 years. We have looked at the medical records and the report on his partner who is heavily reliant upon him. We have also considered A. G. v Valler [2002JLR383] on that basis.
7. He has pleaded guilty, which is not, in the circumstances, of very great value though, as Miss Juste has reminded us, he did plead guilty in the Magistrate's Court though, of course, under the name of Maurice Knight (his alias - Knight is the name of his partner).
8. We have had careful regard to all the health matters referred to us by Miss Juste, but this was in our view, a cynical attempt to import a large amount of drugs into Jersey, by a seasoned criminal, who is, no doubt, in close contact with those who set the scheme up and whom he will not, of course, name. We have said that we believe the starting point is correct and we have carefully examined the mitigation on this elderly career criminal.
9. In the circumstances, by way of mercy, we are going to reduce the conclusions to 3 years. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities A. G. -v- Evans, Evans and Snooks (16 th June 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/113]. A. G. -v- Shoesmith (19 th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/53]. A. G. -v- Cooke & McClements (24 th March, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/70]. Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2 nd Ed'n): pp. 14 - 19. Campbell & Ors -v- A. G. [1995JLR136]. Valler -v- A. G. [2002JLR383]. Page Last Updated: 14 Jul 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.