Jersey Judgment

AG v Butler [2000] JRC 1A (07 January 2000)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court determined that, despite the seriousness of the offences and the absence of exceptional circumstances, the defendant's wish to undergo drug treatment and time already served in custody justified binding him over to be of good behaviour with conditions, rather than imposing further youth detention.

Court disposition

Defendant bound over to be of good behaviour for 6 months with conditions; probation order discharged; drugs forfeited and destroyed; disqualification from driving for 6 months concurrent on relevant counts; fines imposed with detention in default.

Orders

  • Defendant to reside with family for 6 months and undergo Naltraxone treatment as directed
  • Disqualification from driving for 6 months on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, concurrent
  • Probation order discharged
  • Drugs forfeited and destroyed
  • £150 fine or 3 weeks' youth detention in default (count 4)
  • £10 fine or 3 days' youth detention in default (count 8)

02

Material facts

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecutor Counsel: D. E. Le Cornu

Oliver Robert Butler

Defendant Counsel: Advocate A. Messervy

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine for Driving Without Due Care (count 4): GBP 150
  • Fine for Failing to Notify Change of Ownership (count 8): GBP 10
  • Youth Detention for Possession of Diamorphine (count 1): months 6
  • Youth Detention for Each of Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7: months 1
  • Disqualification From Driving (counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7): months 6

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Appropriate sentence for multiple offences including possession of diamorphine, driving offences, and breach of probation

Party arguments

Applicant
Crown submitted a starting point of 12 months' detention, no exceptional circumstances.
Respondent
Mitigation included youth, guilty plea, cooperation, poor upbringing, wish for drug treatment, and time already spent in custody.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's sentencing observations

    Serious driving offences merit disqualification; sentences for related offences may run concurrently; consideration of rehabilitation for drug addiction.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court determined that, despite the seriousness of the offences and the absence of exceptional circumstances, the defendant's wish to undergo drug treatment and time already served in custody justified binding him over to be of good behaviour with conditions, rather than imposing further youth detention.

Obiter and limits

  • Court envisaged difficulties if Youth Custody sentence imposed as Defendant would be released immediately having served sentence whilst on remand.

Court disposition

Defendant bound over to be of good behaviour for 6 months with conditions; probation order discharged; drugs forfeited and destroyed; disqualification from driving for 6 months concurrent on relevant counts; fines imposed with detention in default.

  • Defendant to reside with family for 6 months and undergo Naltraxone treatment as directed
  • Disqualification from driving for 6 months on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, concurrent
  • Probation order discharged
  • Drugs forfeited and destroyed
  • £150 fine or 3 weeks' youth detention in default (count 4)
  • £10 fine or 3 days' youth detention in default (count 8)

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

[2000] JRC 1A

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Unreported Judgments You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Butler [2000] JRC 1A (07 January 2000) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2000/2000_1A.html Cite as: [2000] JRC 1A [ New search ] [ Help ] 2000/1A pages

ROYAL COURT (Samedi Division) th January, 2000. Before: F. C. Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Le Ruez and Le Brocq. The Attorney General -v- Oliver Robert Butler. count of: possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 : Count 1: diamorphine; counts of: driving whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 9(4)(b), as amended, of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (counts 2, 5); counts of: using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1), as amended, of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law, 1948 (counts 3, 6, 7); count of: driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15, as amended of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 4); count of failing to notify change of ownership of a motor vehicle, contrary to Article 11(2 ) of the Motor Vehicle (Jersey) Law 1993 (count 8). The Defendant was also in breach of a 2 year Probation Order imposed by the Magistrates Court on th May, 1999, for the offences of possessing controlled drugs, cannabis, (2 charges), ecstasy ( 1 charge), possession of offensive weapon, dangerous driving, taking and driving away and using a motor vehicle without insurance Age : 20. Plea: Guilty Details of Offence: Defendant seen driving by Police Officer on mobile patrol who recognised the Defendant and was aware he had recently been

disqualified from driving. The officer gave chase and the Defendant was stopped in St Brelade's Parish Hall car park. The Defendant threw 2 packets out of the car window, subsequently found to be heroin. It was established that the Defendant was driving his girlfriend's motor car whilst disqualified and without insurance. Further enquiries revealed that on a previous occasion the Defendant had also been driving a different motor vehicle whilst uninsured. Details of Mitigation: Relative youth. Guilty plea. Co-operation with the police. Poor educational upbringing. Defendant wished to have Naltraxone treatment in connection with his heroin addictions. In Youth custody since 17 th July, 1999. Previous Convictions: Numerous, including previous for possession and importation of controlled drugs including class A. Conclusions: Count 1: 6 month's Youth Detention Count 2: 1 months' Youth Detention; 6 month's disqualification from driving. Count 3: 1 months' Youth Detention; 6 month's disqualification from driving. Count 4: £150 fine or 3 week's Youth Detention, consecutive in default of payment Count 5: 1 months' Youth Detention; 6 month's disqualification from driving. Count 6: 1 months' Youth Detention; 6 month's disqualification from driving. Count 7: 1 months' Youth Detention; 6 month's disqualification from driving. Count 8: £10 fine or 3 days Youth Detention consecutive in

default of payment. Sentences on counts 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7 to run concurrently with each other; disqualification from driving sentences to run concurrently. Probation Order discharged; drugs to be forfeited and destroyed. Sentence & Observations of the Court: Starting point of 12 month's submitted by Crown is correct. No exceptional circumstances. In view of the Defendants wish to undergo treatment for a drug addiction Court envisaged difficulties if Youth Custody sentence imposed as Defendant would be released immediately having served sentence whilst on remand. Court of view that serious driving offences merit disqualification. Count 1 to 8: On each count Defendant bound over to be of good behaviour for 6 months on condition that he reside with his family at their address during the whole period and on condition that he undergo Naltraxone treatment as directed by and to the satisfaction of Mr Saunders of the Drugs and Alcohol Service. Disqualification from driving for 6 month's concurrent on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Probation Order discharged. Drugs forfieted and destroyed. D. E. . Le Cornu, Esq., Crown Advocate; Advocate A. Messervy for the accused.

NO

RECORDED JUDGMENT

NO

AUTHORITIES Authorities Page Last Updated: 19 Aug 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2000/2000_1A.html

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.

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law, 1948

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Motor Vehicle (Jersey) Law 1993

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.