AG v Hussain [2007] JRC 182 (27 September 2007)
- Citation
- [2007] JRC 182
- 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 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 AdvocateCrown
ProsecutionAmounts and remedies
- Quantity of Heroin: 259
- Imprisonment (years): 7
- Driving Disqualification (years): 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for possession with intent to supply heroin
- 02
mitigation based on threats
- 03
concurrent sentencing for motoring offences
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
Legal principles
- 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.
Court record
Judgment
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
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.