AG -v- Dicker [2005] JRC 059 (29 April 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 059
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Given the defendant's prior record and the circumstances of the case, a custodial sentence is necessary, but mitigation allows for a reduced term and concurrent sentences.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- £400 fine or 1 month's imprisonment on count 1
- 12 months' imprisonment on count 2
- £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment on count 3
- 9 months' imprisonment on count 4
- all sentences concurrent, total 12 months' imprisonment
- forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- confiscation order in the sum of £1,367
- arrangements for bereavement counselling in prison
02
Material facts
Parties
Dicker
DefendantAttorney General
ProsecutorAmounts and remedies
- Cannabis Quantity: 0.75
- Street Value of Cannabis (lower Estimate): GBP 3,000
- Street Value of Cannabis (upper Estimate): GBP 4,000
- Purchase Price of Cannabis: GBP 600
- Fine on Count 1: GBP 400
- Fine on Count 3: GBP 100
- Confiscation Order: GBP 1,367
- Imprisonment on Count 2 (months): 12
- Imprisonment on Count 4 (months): 9
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for possession of cannabis with intent to supply
- 02
consideration of prior convictions in sentencing
- 03
mitigating factors in sentencing
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant pleaded guilty, made a full confession, and presented mitigating circumstances including the recent death of his mother and supportive letters from family and friends.
- Respondent
- The defendant has a bad record including a prior conviction for drug importation and was heavily involved in drug trafficking, warranting a custodial sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
A. G. v Dicker, Driscoll and Wakeham [1998]JRC216
Sentencing must reflect the seriousness of the offence, prior convictions, and mitigating circumstances.
- 02
A. G. v Chartier [2002]JRC180
Concurrent sentences may be imposed for related offences.
- 03
A. G. v Le Coeur [2005]JRC027
Confiscation orders and forfeiture of drugs are appropriate in drug trafficking cases.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Given the defendant's prior record and the circumstances of the case, a custodial sentence is necessary, but mitigation allows for a reduced term and concurrent sentences.
Obiter and limits
- The court expressed hope that the defendant would not reoffend and acknowledged the impact of bereavement.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- £400 fine or 1 month's imprisonment on count 1
- 12 months' imprisonment on count 2
- £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment on count 3
- 9 months' imprisonment on count 4
- all sentences concurrent, total 12 months' imprisonment
- forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- confiscation order in the sum of £1,367
- arrangements for bereavement counselling in prison
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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. This defendant is to be sentenced for four drugs offences, two of which involved the possession of cannabis with intent to supply. The amount involved is about ¾ of kilogram, valued on the street at between £3,000 - £4,000.
2. The defendant admits he bought the drug for £600 and that he intended to sell it for profit. He has a bad record including a conviction for being concerned in the importation of cannabis for which he was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment in 1998.
3. If one asks the rhetorical question to what extent is this defendant involved in drug trafficking the answer must be quite heavily involved although the amount of drugs in question here is at the lower end of the drug trafficking scale. Having regard to the defendant's record and to all the other circumstances of the case, we think that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of 2 years' imprisonment.
4. In mitigation, however, Dicker has pleaded guilty to the indictment and he eventually made a full confession to the police. There are other material circumstances as well.
5. We take account of all the submissions of your counsel in particular as to the effect upon you of the recent death of your mother. The letters written by your sister and by your friends have persuaded us that as an act of mercy we can reduce slightly the conclusions of the Crown. We cannot avoid sending you to prison because you went into this with your eyes open knowing full well the consequences of selling drugs. We will, however, ask the prison authorities to make arrangements for you to continue to have bereavement counselling and we hope that you live up to your promise to your mother that you will never again involve yourself in drugs and that we shall not see you again.
6. The sentence of the Court is that on count 1, you will be fined £400 or 1 month's imprisonment. On count 2, you will go to prison for 12 months. On count 3, you will be fined £100 or 1 week's imprisonment in the alternative, and on Count 4, that you will be sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment, all those sentences to be concurrent making a total of 12 months' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and a confiscation order in the sum of £1,367. Authorities A. G. -v- Dicker, Driscoll and Wakeham (28 th October 1998) Jersey Unreported [1998]JRC216. A. G. -v- Chartier (4 th October 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002]JRC180. A. G. -v- Le Coeur [2005]JRC027. Hasson -v- A. G. [2004]JCA124. Page Last Updated: 14 Jul 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
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.