AG v Fannon [2005] JRC 033 (24 March 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 033
- 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
The defendant is entitled to a one-third reduction in sentence for an early guilty plea, as there is no reason to withhold the conventional discount in this case.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 5.5 years' imprisonment on Count 1
- 1 month imprisonment on Count 2
- 3 months' imprisonment on Count 3, all concurrent
- forfeiture and destruction of the drugs
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ProsecutorDefendant
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Resin Quantity: 35
- Payment for Storage: GBP 5,000
- Imprisonment (count 1): years 5.5
- Imprisonment (count 2): months 1
- Imprisonment (count 3): months 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentencing for possession and concealment of controlled drugs
- 02
Extent of mitigation for early guilty plea
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, has no previous drug offences, has a good work record, is remorseful, and mitigation should be allowed including a full reduction for the guilty plea.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued that the guilty plea did not merit a full reduction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sentencing practice; referenced authorities
Conventional discount for guilty plea should apply unless there are clear reasons to withhold it.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The defendant is entitled to a one-third reduction in sentence for an early guilty plea, as there is no reason to withhold the conventional discount in this case.
Obiter and limits
- The defendant could have argued lack of knowledge of the drugs, though such an argument would likely not have succeeded.
- The defendant's remorse and good work record were considered in mitigation.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 5.5 years' imprisonment on Count 1
- 1 month imprisonment on Count 2
- 3 months' imprisonment on Count 3, all concurrent
- 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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. This defendant took possession of some 35 kilos resin and hid it in a cupboard to which he had access. He was to look after it for a few days for a dealer in return for the sum of £5,000. He had debts at the time and there had been a down turn in his trade, so he did it for financial reasons.
2. In mitigation he has pleaded guilty and he did so at the earliest opportunity. That stands him in good stead. He has a previous record, but no previous drug offences and in particular he has committed no offences at all since 1992. He has a good work record and we have seen a reference. He is remorseful and we accept that, both from his letter and from the contents of the Social Enquiry Report to which we paid careful attention.
3. In our judgment the Crown has allowed sufficient mitigation save in one respect. The Crown said that in its opinion the guilty plea did not merit a full reduction. We have to say we do not see why it does not merit a full reduction. These drugs were found in a place other than his home. Admittedly it was a cupboard to which he and his brother had access to the padlock, but it would clearly have been open to him to run an argument that he did not know the drugs were there. We are not, of course, suggesting that such an argument would have succeeded but, nevertheless, it seems to us that this is just the sort of case which is intended to be covered by the conventional discount for a guilty plea, and we see no reason why he should not receive one-third. In the circumstances, therefore, we vary the conclusions slightly.
4. On Count 1, you will be sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment. On Count 2, one month. On Count 3, 3 months' imprisonment, all those concurrent and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities A. G. -v- McMahon (27 th April, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/74]. A. G -v- Clarke (24 th July, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/155]. Prentice -v- A. G . [2004]JCA008. Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2 nd Ed'n): pp. 15 -17. A. G. -v- Baglin [2003]JRC085. A. G. -v- Harris (4 th December 1995) Jersey Unreported; [1995/238]. 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.