Jersey Judgment

AG v Cank [2019] JRC 238 (10 December 2019)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The sentence is justified at 3 years' imprisonment due to the unsophisticated nature of the importation, cooperation with authorities, and significant mitigation including guilty plea and personal circumstances.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 3 years' imprisonment on Count 1
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs seized
  • no order for costs

02

Material facts

Parties

Crown

Prosecutor

Defendant

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Wilson

Amounts and remedies

  • Quantity of Cannabis Resin: 14.8

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

appropriate sentence for knowingly concerned in importation of cannabis resin

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown moved for a starting point of 6 years' imprisonment based on Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136, and sought a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment considering mitigation.
Respondent
Advocate Wilson accepted the Crown's conclusions, highlighted mitigation including remorse, guilty plea, cooperation with Customs, personal bereavement, and stable family life.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136

    Sentencing structure for drug importation offences

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The sentence is justified at 3 years' imprisonment due to the unsophisticated nature of the importation, cooperation with authorities, and significant mitigation including guilty plea and personal circumstances.

Obiter and limits

  • A case could have been made for a starting point of 7 years' due to the quantity of cannabis involved.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 3 years' imprisonment on Count 1
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs seized
  • no order for costs

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

[2019] JRC 238

JUDGMENT THE Commissioner: 1. You are here to be sentenced on a single count of being knowingly concerned in the importation of a 14.8kg of cannabis resin having pleaded guilty on Indictment. The drugs were brought over in a car which you had hired a few days earlier and which you brought over on the ferry from Poole. There were four packages in that car containing cannabis. Two of those packages had your finger prints on them. You have previous convictions for the possession of cannabis in 1994 and of cocaine in 2015, and a conviction of possession with intent to supply cannabis in 1996.

2. The Crown has moved for a starting point of 6 years' imprisonment on the application of the structure which is set out in Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 , and moves for a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment on that count in the Indictment, having regard to all the mitigation.

3. On your behalf Advocate Wilson has not challenged the conclusions, they are accepted. He has reminded us of the mitigation. You have expressed remorse and regrets to all concerned. The other points which he has mentioned, your guilty plea which is the most significant part of the mitigation, your cooperation with Customs in pointing to the other parcels in the car, the cannabis under the bonnet, and bereavement difficulties and other tragedies which there have been in your personal life, and he has reminded us of the stable family life that you have at the moment.

4. We think that a case could have been made out for a starting point of 7 years' having regard to the quantity of cannabis involved, but we have decided in light of the unsophisticated nature of the importation and the cooperation which you have given that your involvement in drug trafficking can allow us to find an appropriate starting point of 6 years' as the Crown have said. So we take that as the starting point. Having regard to all the mitigation before us and what is set out in the papers for the Court we consider the Crown's conclusions are justified.

5. On Count 1 on the Indictment you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment.

6. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized. There will be no order for costs. Authorities Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 . AG v Przydanek [2019] JRC 216 AG v Hole, Rice & Rodrigues [2018] JRC 062A . Page Last Updated: 19 Dec 2019 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.

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136

Case cited

AG v Przydanek [2019] JRC 216

Case cited

AG v Hole, Rice & Rodrigues [2018] JRC 062A

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.