Jersey Judgment

AG v Fannon [2005] JRC 033 (24 March 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Prosecutor

Defendant

Defendant

Amounts 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

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2005] JRC 033

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

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- McMahon (27 April 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/74]

Case cited

A. G -v- Clarke (24 July 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/155]

Case cited

Prentice -v- A. G. [2004]JCA008

Case cited

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2nd Ed'n): pp. 15-17

Case cited

A. G. -v- Baglin [2003]JRC085

Case cited

A. G. -v- Harris (4 December 1995) Jersey Unreported; [1995/238]

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.