AG v Hussain [2024] JRC 183 (12 September 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] JRC 183
- 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 imposed sentences and orders as sought by the Attorney General, finding them correct except for a minor adjustment, based on established principles for drug offences and confiscation.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
Orders
- Declaration of benefit in sum of £19,165.10
- Confiscation order of €1,300 and £350
- Forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- Imprisonment totaling 7 years and 6 months
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ApplicantUnnamed Defendant
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Declaration of Benefit: GBP 19,165.1
- Confiscation Order: EUR 1,300
- Confiscation Order: GBP 350
- Total Imprisonment: 7.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for drug offences
- 02
confiscation and forfeiture orders
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Attorney General sought declaration of benefit, confiscation, forfeiture, and specific sentences.
- Respondent
- Arguments considered but Court found Attorney General's sentence correct except for one minor particular.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136
Sentencing for drug offences must reflect seriousness and benefit derived.
- 02
AG v Bhowjani [2010] JRC 116
Confiscation and forfeiture orders are appropriate in drug cases.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court imposed sentences and orders as sought by the Attorney General, finding them correct except for a minor adjustment, based on established principles for drug offences and confiscation.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
- Declaration of benefit in sum of £19,165.10
- Confiscation order of €1,300 and £350
- Forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- Imprisonment totaling 7 years and 6 months
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 will give reasons for our decision in a written judgment to follow in course.
2. We make the declaration of benefit as the Attorney General has asked in the sum of £19,165.10 and a confiscation order of €1,300 and £350 as sought.
3. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
4. Careful consideration has been given to all of the arguments but the Court is entirely satisfied that the sentence moved for by the Attorney General is correct in all but one very minor particular.
5. Accordingly you are sentenced as follows:- (i) Count 1 on the First Indictment, 6 years' imprisonment from a starting point of 9 years. (ii) Count 2, 16 months' imprisonment, from a starting point of 2 years, concurrent to Count 1.
6. On the Second Indictment:- (i) Count 1, 2 years from a starting point of 3 years, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment. (ii) Count 2, 18 months' imprisonment from a starting point of 5 years, consecutive to Count 1 on the Second Indictment. (iii) Count 3, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment. (iv) Count 4, 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment. (v) Count 5, 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment.
7. Making a total of 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Authorities Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626 Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383 AG v Bhowjani [2010] JRC 116 AG v Brennan [2016] JRC 234 AG v Hole, Rice and Rodrigues [2018] JRC 062A AG v Hagin [2020] JRC 157 AG v Hagin [2020] JRC 176 AG v Czarnecki [2020] JRC 177 AG v Thurban & Ors [2020] JRC 191A AG v Thurban & Ors [2020] JRC 212 AG v Agathangelou, Bayliss, Bisson & Morgan [2021] JRC 056 AG v Dryden & Whitcombe [2022] JRC 007 AG v Dryden & Whitcombe [2022] JRC 009 AG v Boon [2022] JRC 068 Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2024 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map 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.