Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Davey [2005] JRC 125 (12 September 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

For importation and social supply of less than 4 grams of heroin for personal use, a starting point of 4 years is appropriate, but in this case, concurrent sentences totaling 2 years are imposed due to mitigation and the specific facts.

Court disposition

conviction and sentence

Orders

  • Count 1: 2 years imprisonment
  • Count 2: 1 year imprisonment
  • Count 3: 2 years imprisonment
  • Count 4: 2 years imprisonment
  • Count 5: 2 years imprisonment
  • All sentences to run concurrently (total 2 years imprisonment)
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant Counsel: Mr Le Cornu

Amounts and remedies

  • Heroin Imported (grams): 2.1
  • Heroin Shared With Each Friend (grams): 0.1
  • Heroin Technically Minded (grams): 0.3
  • Total Imprisonment (years): 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown seeks guidance on the starting point for importation of modest amounts of heroin for personal use, citing inconsistent decisions in previous cases.
Respondent
The defendant, through Mr Le Cornu, submits that there have been inconsistent decisions and refers to previous cases with varying starting points for similar quantities.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Judgment

    Quantity is an important aspect in fixing a starting point for sentencing, but not the only factor.

  2. 02

    Judgment

    Mitigation includes guilty plea and motivation to change, but a bad record and addiction are aggravating factors.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

For importation and social supply of less than 4 grams of heroin for personal use, a starting point of 4 years is appropriate, but in this case, concurrent sentences totaling 2 years are imposed due to mitigation and the specific facts.

Obiter and limits

  • It is not possible to know from the reports whether there were other factors in some of those cases which explain what otherwise might thought to be an inconsistency.
  • If the defendant does not change, he is likely to keep returning to prison.

Court disposition

conviction and sentence

  • Count 1: 2 years imprisonment
  • Count 2: 1 year imprisonment
  • Count 3: 2 years imprisonment
  • Count 4: 2 years imprisonment
  • Count 5: 2 years imprisonment
  • All sentences to run concurrently (total 2 years imprisonment)
  • 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 125

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. The defendant in this case imported 2.1 grams of heroin by posting it to himself from England. It was for his personal use. Once it had arrived in the Island he shared 0.1 grams with each of two friends, fellow addicts.

2. He also whilst with them picked up just under 0.3 of a gram which one of those two friends was going to sell. This was a very technical minding on his part. He was going to give it back to the friend very shortly thereafter, later the same day.

3. The Crown has referred this matter to the Superior Number because it is looking for guidance as to the starting point for importations of modest amounts of heroin for personal use. Mr Le Cornu submits that there have been inconsistent decisions. We have been referred to the cases of Finnigan -v- AG Jersey Unreported [2004]JRC077, AG -v- Ferguson Jersey Unreported [2004]JRC162, AG -v- Oliveira Jersey Unreported [2005]JRC047, AG- -v- Harris Jersey Unreported [2005]JRC094 and A. G. -v- Laycock [2005]JRC120, where starting points of either 4 or 5 years have been taken for amounts varying between just under 4 grams and something in the order of 7 or 7½ grams.

4. We agree that quantity is an important aspect in fixing a starting point, but it is not the only factor. It is not possible to know from the reports whether there were other factors in some of those cases which explain what otherwise might thought to be an inconsistency.

5. We feel unable to give any more general guidance other than to say this, that in relation to this case, where the amounts involved are less than any of the other cases, we think a starting point of 4 years is appropriate.

6. Similarly, the social supply, in our judgment, should attract a starting point of 4 years and the technical minding of this very small amount of heroin for a very short time.

7. In relation to mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty. He has a bad record, and a long standing heroin addiction. But he tells us that he is motivated to change and we very much hope that is correct, because if not then he is likely simply to keep going back to prison for further occasions.

8. Taking all that into account the sentence is as follows: on Count 1, 2 years imprisonment; Count 2, 1 year's imprisonment; Count 3, 2 years' imprisonment; Count 4, 2 years' imprisonment; Count 5, 2 years' imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent, making 2 years' imprisonment in all. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities AG -v- Oliveira Jersey Unreported [2005]JRC047. Finnigan -v- A. G. [2004]JRC077. AG -v- Ferguson [2004[JRC162. AG -v- Harris [2005]JRC094. AG -v- Laycock [2005]JRC120. 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.

Finnigan v AG [2004]JRC077

Case cited

AG v Ferguson [2004]JRC162

Case cited

AG v Oliveira [2005]JRC047

Case cited

AG v Harris [2005]JRC094

Case cited

AG v Laycock [2005]JRC120

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.