Jersey Judgment

AG v Lavin [2003] JRC 197 (03 November 2003)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court determined that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was twelve years, reflecting both offences, and applied mitigation for guilty plea and personal circumstances, resulting in a total sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • seven years' imprisonment on count 1
  • two and a half years' imprisonment concurrent on count 2
  • forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Lavin

Defendant

Crown

Prosecution

Amounts and remedies

  • Cannabis Quantity: 6.9
  • Cannabis Street Value: GBP 40,000
  • Ecstasy Tablets Quantity: 5,000
  • Ecstasy Street Value: GBP 50,000
  • Payment to Defendant: GBP 1,500

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Lavin argued mitigation based on guilty plea, lack of previous drug convictions, personal circumstances, and claimed ignorance of the nature of the drugs.
Respondent
The Crown submitted that the starting point for ecstasy should be eleven years, with an increase for the cannabis offence, and that ignorance of the drug type is not a mitigating factor.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG v Valler (28 February 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/48]

    Increase starting point for principal offence to account for additional offences without mathematical addition.

  2. 02

    AG v Campbell & Ors [1995] JLR 136

    Ignorance of drug type is not a mitigating factor.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court determined that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was twelve years, reflecting both offences, and applied mitigation for guilty plea and personal circumstances, resulting in a total sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant's claim of ignorance regarding the drug type is not a mitigating factor as established in Campbell.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • seven years' imprisonment on count 1
  • two and a half years' imprisonment concurrent on count 2
  • forfeiture and destruction of the 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

[2003] JRC 197

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Lavin, you imported 6.9 kilos of cannabis with a street value of about £40,000 and 5,000 ecstasy tablets with a street value of about £50,000 concealed in a car. You were a courier and you agreed to do this run in exchange for forgiveness of your debt and £1500. You have an appalling record, having spent more of your adult life in prison than out of it and, according to the Drug & Alcohol Report, your longest period outside has been some two years.

2. The first thing we have to do is fix on a starting point for the 5,000 ecstasy. If that stood alone we would agree with the Crown that a starting point of eleven years was correct. For the 6.9 kilos of cannabis, if that stood alone, given the range of two to six years for one to ten kilos, we think that, taking account of your role, the correct starting point for that would have been four years. We then have to apply the principles set out in the case of Valler and we must increase the starting point for the ecstasy offence to take account of the cannabis offence but it is not a mathematical addition of the two starting points. We think, bearing in mind all the submissions we have heard and the circumstances of the offence, that an addition of one year to the ecstasy starting point is correct so that makes an overall starting point of twelve years.

3. In mitigation we take into account the guilty plea, the fact that you have no previous drugs convictions, amongst your many other convictions, that your marriage has broken up since you were last released from prison, and that you are now fifty-two and you have spent so much of your life in prison. We accept what you say, that you didn't know it was ecstasy, but it is clear from Campbel l that that is not a mitigating factor.

4. Baring in mind all these matters, we think the Crown has made the right overall deduction. So, the sentence on count 1 is seven years' imprisonment, on count 2, making a roughly proportionate reduction, two and a half years concurrent so the total is seven years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities AG -v- Valler (28 February 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/48] AG -v- Le Mière (25 March 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/68] AG -v- Munro-Rourke (28 May 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/107] Valler -v- AG (18 July 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/133] AG -v- Bonnar and Noon [2001] JLR 626 AG -v- Campbell & Ors [1995] JLR 136 Page Last Updated: 18 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.

AG v Valler (28 February 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/48]

Case cited

AG v Le Mière (25 March 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/68]

Case cited

AG v Munro-Rourke (28 May 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/107]

Case cited

Valler v AG (18 July 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/133]

Case cited

AG v Bonnar and Noon [2001] JLR 626

Case cited

AG v Campbell & Ors [1995] JLR 136

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.