AG v Hagin [2020] JRC 157 (04 August 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] JRC 157
- 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 court accepted the Crown's assessment of benefit and sentencing proposals, imposing a confiscation order, concurrent and consecutive sentences for multiple counts, and ordering forfeiture and destruction of drugs.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
Orders
- Declaration of benefit in the sum of £4,440.
- Nominal confiscation order in the sum of £1.
- Sentences of imprisonment as specified for each count, totaling 4 years.
- Forfeiture and destruction of drugs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Crown
ProsecutorDefendant
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Benefit Declared: GBP 4,440
- Nominal Confiscation Order: GBP 1
- Total Imprisonment: years 4
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
determination of benefit from crime
- 02
imposition of confiscation order
- 03
sentencing for multiple counts of drug offences
- 04
forfeiture and destruction of drugs
Party arguments
- Respondent
- The Crown's conclusions and sentencing proposals were accepted by the court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999
Benefit from crime must be determined and confiscation order imposed accordingly.
- 02
Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136
Sentencing for drug offences should reflect seriousness and concurrency/consecutivity as appropriate.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court accepted the Crown's assessment of benefit and sentencing proposals, imposing a confiscation order, concurrent and consecutive sentences for multiple counts, and ordering forfeiture and destruction of drugs.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
- Declaration of benefit in the sum of £4,440.
- Nominal confiscation order in the sum of £1.
- Sentences of imprisonment as specified for each count, totaling 4 years.
- Forfeiture and destruction of 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 Bailiff: 1. We make a declaration of benefit in the sum of £4,440 and a nominal confiscation order in the sum of £1 which is not contested.
2. We will give reasons for this decision in due course, but we agree with the conclusions of the Crown and accordingly you are sentenced as the Crown has proposed specifically: (i) Count 1, from a starting point of 5 years', 3 years' imprisonment. (ii) Count 2 from a starting point of 5 years', 3 years' imprisonment. (iii) Count 3 from a starting point 5 years', 3 years' imprisonment. (iv) Count 4 from a starting point 5 years, 3 year's imprisonment, all of those concurrent with Count 1. (v) Count 5, 12 months' imprisonment consecutive to Count 1. (vi) Count 6, starting point of 5 years' 3 years imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1. (vii) Count 7, 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 5. (viii) Count 8, 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 5. (ix) Count 9, 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 5. (x) Count 10, 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 5. (xi) Count 11, from a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment, 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1. (xii) Count 12 starting point 5 years', 3 years imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1. (xiii) Count 13, no separate penalty. Making a total of 4 years' imprisonment.
3. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 . Rae v AG [2017] JCA 197 . AG v Gilbraith and Rawlinson [2017] JRC 155 . AG v Rae and Spinola [2017] JRC 080 . AG v Whelan, Grace and Robinson [2017] JRC 040B . AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A . AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 . Page Last Updated: 01 Sep 2020 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.