Jersey Judgment

AG v Hussain [2007] JRC 182 (27 September 2007)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The defendant was sentenced based on possession with intent to supply 259 grams of heroin, with mitigation for guilty plea but not for threats, and concurrent sentencing for motoring offences.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 7 years' imprisonment (all counts concurrent)
  • disqualified from driving for 3 years
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Unnamed Defendant

Defendant Counsel: defendant's Advocate

Crown

Prosecution

Amounts and remedies

  • Quantity of Heroin: 259
  • Imprisonment (years): 7
  • Driving Disqualification (years): 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant argued that he was minding the drugs and money for someone else and that threats were made to him, as stated in his letter and by his Advocate.
Respondent
The Crown argued that the correct starting point for sentencing was 11 years due to the quantity of drugs and involvement, and that mitigation for threats was not applicable as per established court principles.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's repeated statements in prior cases

    Those who, by illegal use of drugs, get themselves into a position where threats are subsequently made cannot plead in mitigation that those threats have caused them to carry out drug dealing activities.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The defendant was sentenced based on possession with intent to supply 259 grams of heroin, with mitigation for guilty plea but not for threats, and concurrent sentencing for motoring offences.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant could be considered fortunate that motoring offences are dealt with concurrently with drug offences.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 7 years' imprisonment (all counts concurrent)
  • disqualified from driving for 3 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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2007] JRC 182

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are a heroin addict who has failed, over the years, to respond to treatment, and in particular you were sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment in relation to possession of drugs and were released only in March 2006. Yet now here you are before us for an offence related to possession with intent to supply of 259 grams of heroin.

2. When interviewed at the time you gave no explanation of what you were doing with this heroin plus some money which was found in your flat. However you now say that you were minding them for someone else and the Court accepts that and sentences you on that basis.

3. There is clearly no alternative to prison in this case and the Court agrees that the correct starting point is one of 11 years, having regard to the quantity of drugs and your involvement.

4. In mitigation you have pleaded guilty, although your initial interview was to give no comment, and therefore you cannot get any additional mitigation for co-operation at that time. We have read your letter carefully and we note that you say this offence was committed because of threats which were made to you. However the Court has repeatedly said that those who, by the illegal use of drugs, get themselves into a position where threats are subsequently made cannot plead in mitigation that those threats have caused them to carry out drug dealing activities. We have read all the reports and we have carefully considered your letter and all that your Advocate has said, but we are satisfied that the Crown has made sufficient deduction from the starting point to reflect the mitigation available. Indeed in some respects you could be said to be fortunate that the motoring offences are being dealt with concurrently with the drug offences, as they are quite different, but we agree that in the overall circumstances that is the right course. We are going to make some minor reductions to the motoring offences for the reason put forward by your Advocate.

5. On Count 1; 4 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, on Count 3; 6 months' imprisonment, on Count 6; 7 years' imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent, so that is a total of 7 years.

6. We disqualify you from driving for 3 years and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 10 Jun 2015 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.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.