Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Buchanan [2015] JRC 170 (18 August 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court reduced the starting point for sentencing from 11 to 10 years due to the defendant's limited involvement as a minder and lack of evidence of participation in the drugs trade, further reducing the sentence to 4½ years due to mitigation including a guilty plea, youth, and positive character references.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Imprisonment for 4.5 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Crown

Prosecution

Amounts and remedies

  • Quantity of Heroin: 278.2
  • Street Value of Heroin: GBP 278,000
  • Sentence Length: years 4.5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Defendant claimed to be a minder, holding drugs for an acquaintance for a short period, with no involvement in the drugs trade.
Respondent
Crown recommended an 11-year starting point based on sentencing guidelines for possession with intent to supply.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rimmer and Ors v AG [2001] JLR 373

    Sentencing guidelines are starting points and must take into account the degree of involvement in drug trafficking.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court reduced the starting point for sentencing from 11 to 10 years due to the defendant's limited involvement as a minder and lack of evidence of participation in the drugs trade, further reducing the sentence to 4½ years due to mitigation including a guilty plea, youth, and positive character references.

Obiter and limits

  • Minding drugs for another is an important part of the chain of supply and does not automatically justify a lower starting point.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • Imprisonment for 4.5 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the 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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2015] JRC 170

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are to be sentenced in respect of one count of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply. The quantity was 278.2 grams and the drug was heroin, of varying degrees of purity. This has a street value of £278,000.

2. Whilst you do not have an unblemished record, you have no previous convictions for drugs offences and we view your record as not relevant for our present purposes.

3. You are to be sentenced on your version of events, namely that you were simply a minder, having been asked to hold the drugs for an acquaintance for a short period. Minding drugs for another is an important part of the chain of supply and would not, of itself, cause the Court to look for a lower starting point than that recommended by the Crown. However, we have had regard to the fact that there is no indication that you were involved at all in the drugs trade and, indeed, the indications in this case appear to be to the contrary.

4. We note the extracts from the case of Rimmer ( Rimmer and Ors-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 ) cited by your counsel which indicate that the starting points are guidelines only and that amongst the things we are to take into account are other factors showing the degree to which a defendant was concerned in drug trafficking. In the circumstances we feel able to reduce the starting point in this case from the 11 years recommended by the Crown to one of 10 years.

5. We have considered the mitigation available to you with care. We note your guilty plea and we note your relative youth and that, from our perspective, is an important factor. We also pay particular regard to the letters that you have provided from your family which speak extremely well of you and we have taken these very much into account in our thinking.

6. I have to tell you that the Court is divided in how you should be dealt with; a number of members of the court feel that you should be dealt with more seriously than we are proposing to deal with you. However, the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 4½ years.

7. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Rimmer and Ors v AG [2001] JLR 373 . Vipond v AG [2004] JLR Note 24 . AG v Wareing [2015] JRC 035 . Selway v AG [2003] JCA 010 . Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 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.

Rimmer and Ors v AG [2001] JLR 373

Case cited

Vipond v AG [2004] JLR Note 24

Case cited

AG v Wareing [2015] JRC 035

Case cited

Selway v AG [2003] JCA 010

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.