Jersey Judgment

AG v Crowley [2005] JRC 069 (23 May 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

A custodial sentence is mandatory for possession of cocaine with intent to supply, irrespective of age, due to the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. Mitigation and peripheral involvement allow for a reduced sentence but do not avoid custody.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 18 months youth detention
  • forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Roberts

Defendant Counsel: defence counsel

Amounts and remedies

  • Amount of Cocaine: 15
  • Street Value of Cocaine: GBP 12,000
  • Defendant's Payment for Minding Drugs: GBP 100
  • Starting Point for Sentence: years 6
  • Final Sentence: months 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown argued for a higher starting point for sentencing, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence.
Respondent
Defence counsel submitted that a lower starting point should be taken due to the defendant's peripheral involvement, good character, and substantial mitigation.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994

    Court must consider whether offence is so serious that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

A custodial sentence is mandatory for possession of cocaine with intent to supply, irrespective of age, due to the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. Mitigation and peripheral involvement allow for a reduced sentence but do not avoid custody.

Obiter and limits

  • Identifying the older manipulative man would have been a significant mitigating factor.
  • The message must go out that anyone falling prey to temptation in this way is likely to receive a custodial sentence.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 18 months youth detention
  • 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

[2005] JRC 069

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. This is a sad case. The defendant is a young man of good character with a stable family background and the Court has noted a number of excellent testimonials presented to us on his behalf by his counsel.

2. He has however pleaded guilty to the offence of possession of cocaine with intent to supply. The amount involved was 15 grams with a street value of approximately £12,000. The Crown accepts that the defendant is not a drug user but had yielded to the temptation of earning £100 or so for minding these drugs for a few days for an unnamed older man whom he knew through sporting associations.

3. The defendant has not been prepared to identify this man. We wish to state that if he had had the courage to identify the older manipulative man involved in the local footballing scene, that would have been a significant mitigating factor which would probably have allowed us to treat this as an exceptional case.

4. We have asked ourselves, as we are required to do by the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 , whether in all the circumstances of the case the offence is so serious that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided and we have concluded that this is such a case. Those who abuse drugs such as cocaine often use others to hold the drugs in order to reduce the risk to themselves. The message must go out from this Court that anyone falling prey to temptation in this way is likely to receive a custodial sentence irrespective of age. We conclude, therefore, that a custodial sentence must be imposed.

5. As to the starting point we think that it is possible to accept the submissions of defence counsel that a lower figure can be taken than suggested by the Crown. Having regard to the peripheral involvement of the defendant in drug trafficking and to all the other circumstances of the case, we propose to take a starting point, in this case, of 6 years' youth detention.

6. We have made allowance for all the very substantial mitigation that is available to you and we are going to sentence you to 18 months youth detention. We hope that you will take advantage of the time at La Moye to plan for your future, which we hope will have no connection whatsoever with the drug scene. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. No Authorities A. G. -v- Roberts (11 th October, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/194B]. Morgan -v- A. G . [2001]JLR225. Page Last Updated: 14 Jul 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 Roberts (11th October, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/194B]

Case cited

Morgan v A. G. [2001] JLR 225

Case cited

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994

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.