Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Fry [2009] JRC 115 (08 June 2009)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Exceptional mitigation due to voluntary rehabilitation and drug-free status justified substituting imprisonment with lengthy community service and probation, marking the seriousness of the offences while encouraging rehabilitation.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 456 hours community service (count 2)
  • 2 years probation (count 2)
  • 150 hours community service (count 4)
  • 2 years probation (count 4, concurrent)
  • 40 hours community service (count 5)
  • 2 years probation (count 5, concurrent)
  • community service to be completed within 24 months
  • fine of £500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default (Second Indictment)
  • fine payable within 14 weeks
  • driving disqualification for 15 months from 15 May 2009 and until passing prescribed test
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs
  • costs refused

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr Fry

Defendant Counsel: Mr Cadin

Attorney General

Prosecution

Amounts and remedies

  • Ecstasy Tablets: 16
  • Street Value of Ecstasy: GBP 160
  • Cannabis Resin Grams: 310
  • Street Value of Cannabis: GBP 1,710
  • Cash Seized: GBP 4,661.23
  • Fine: GBP 500
  • Community Service Hours (count 2): 456
  • Community Service Hours (count 4): 150
  • Community Service Hours (count 5): 40
  • Probation Period: years 2
  • Driving Disqualification: months 15

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Mr Cadin submitted that the defendant's voluntary attendance at the Alcohol and Drugs Service and subsequent drug-free status constituted an exceptional mitigating factor warranting community service instead of imprisonment.
Respondent
The Crown sought imprisonment based on precedent, referencing Bonnar-v-AG for ecstasy, Campbell-v-AG and AG-v-Channing for cannabis, and requested concurrent sentences and a driving disqualification.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Bonnar-v-AG [2001] JLR 626

    Sentencing for drug supply offences should reflect seriousness and mitigation.

  2. 02

    Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136

    Sentencing brackets for cannabis supply offences.

  3. 03

    AG-v-Channing [2004] JRC 188

    Exceptional mitigation may justify community service instead of imprisonment.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Exceptional mitigation due to voluntary rehabilitation and drug-free status justified substituting imprisonment with lengthy community service and probation, marking the seriousness of the offences while encouraging rehabilitation.

Obiter and limits

  • Community service is not a soft option and must be properly completed.
  • Any breach of community service or probation will result in imprisonment.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 456 hours community service (count 2)
  • 2 years probation (count 2)
  • 150 hours community service (count 4)
  • 2 years probation (count 4, concurrent)
  • 40 hours community service (count 5)
  • 2 years probation (count 5, concurrent)
  • community service to be completed within 24 months
  • fine of £500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default (Second Indictment)
  • fine payable within 14 weeks
  • driving disqualification for 15 months from 15 May 2009 and until passing prescribed test
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs
  • costs refused

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

[2009] JRC 115

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to possession of 16 ecstasy tablets with a street value of £160 with intent to supply, at cost, amongst his social set of friends. He was in possession of 310 grams of cannabis resin with a street value of £1,710 with intent to supply on a commercial basis and possession of a small quantity of cocaine with no street value. He has also pleaded guilty to driving with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

2. The defendant admitted to being a recreational user of cannabis and ecstasy and a heavy user of cocaine. He did not co-operate with the Police in interview and guilty pleas were not entered on an acceptable basis until a relatively late stage in the Court proceedings, i.e. after arraignment and a pre-trial directions hearing. The sum of £4,661.23 in cash was seized from him.

3. Applying Bonnar-v-AG [2001] JLR 626 the Crown move for a starting point of 7 years for the ecstasy count (count 2) reduced to 3 years to take into account all available mitigation. The quantity of cannabis is below the lowest bracket in Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 and in light of AG-v-Channing [2004] JRC 188 which involved cannabis of a similar amount, the Crown seeks a concurrent sentence of 12 months' imprisonment (count 4). The Crown seeks 2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent in relation to count 5 and no additional penalty for the driving offence other than a 15 month disqualification.

4. The defendant has had a good upbringing. He has good accommodation, stable relationships and a supporting employer. Yet he has jeopardised all of this through substance misuse.

5. The Probation Department have recommended an 18 month probation order and a lengthy period of community service. They point out that whilst the defendant has previous convictions for drugs offences, none involve supply and it is his first appearance before the Royal Court.

6. Mr Cadin concedes that there can be no criticism of the conclusions of the Crown but he submits that there is an exceptional factor here which we should take into account and that is that immediately after your arrest and before your appearance before the Magistrate's Court and before legal advice, you attended voluntarily before the Alcohol and Drugs Service and you have turned your life round by becoming drugs-free; that has been confirmed to us by the Alcohol and Drugs Service who have subjected you to regular testing.

7. After much thought and consideration, we agree that this is an exceptional factor and something we should encourage. Furthermore, we note you have the loyal support of your long-standing employer who has provided a very good reference. We accept that your involvement in the drugs trade was caused by your own habit and that we can, exceptionally, on the particular facts of this case and taking into account all the mitigation before us, consider the direct alternative to imprisonment, namely community service. Mr Cadin rightly points out that community service is not a soft option. It is work that has to be properly done over a considerable period of time, in the knowledge that any breach will render you liable to be brought back before this Court where you will face a prison sentence, potentially with no credit for what you may have done in the interim. It constitutes a genuine and valuable contribution to the community for the offences that you have committed. However, to mark the seriousness of the offences which you have pleaded guilty to, you will be sentenced to a lengthy period of community service.

8. You will therefore be sentenced as follows; on count 2; 456 hours community service which is the equivalent of 3 years' imprisonment, you will also be placed on probation for 2 years subject to the usual conditions that you must do whatever the probation office direct you to do, attending courses and programmes as they shall direct, but in particular, on condition firstly that you will remain free of all illegal substances for the duration of that probation order. Secondly, that you will submit to random testing for illegal drugs by the Alcohol and Drug Service. On count 4; you will be sentenced to 150 hours' community service which is the equivalent to 9 months' imprisonment and you will also serve a probation period of 2 years on the same terms that I have already gone through, concurrent. On count 5; you will be sentenced to 40 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 2 weeks' imprisonment and again, a sentence to a 2 year probation period on the same conditions. All of the community service must be completed within 24 months. On the Second Indictment you will be fined £500 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default and you have 14 weeks in which to pay that fine. You will be disqualified from driving for 15 months from the 15 th May, 2009, and from the end of that period until you have passed the prescribed test. Thus in total you are sentenced to 456 hours' community service which is the equivalent of 3 years' imprisonment, to probation for 2 years on the conditions which I have just been through, a fine of £500 and to a disqualification of 15 months from the th May, 2009.

9. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

10. Mr Fry, we hope that you understand the exceptional nature of the order that has been made today. It is not an easy option, you have got 2 years' of community service, a very substantial number of hours which you have to comply with and complete. If you do not, you will be back before us where you will undoubtedly be sent to prison.

11. Costs are refused. Authorities Bonnar -v-AG [2001] JLR 626 . Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 . AG-v-Channing [2004] JRC 188 . AG-v-Doublet [2003] JRC 205 . AG-v-Holley [2003] JRC 063 . Valler -v-AG [2002] JLR 383 . Page Last Updated: 29 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.

Bonnar-v-AG [2001] JLR 626

Case cited

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136

Case cited

AG-v-Channing [2004] JRC 188

Case cited

AG-v-Doublet [2003] JRC 205

Case cited

AG-v-Holley [2003] JRC 063

Case cited

Valler-v-AG [2002] JLR 383

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.