AG v Lomas [2001] JRC 94 (03 May 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] JRC 94
- 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 appropriate starting point for sentencing is five and a half years imprisonment, reduced to three and a half years due to mitigating factors, with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
Orders
- Three and a half years imprisonment for Miss Lomas
- Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs
02
Material facts
Parties
The Crown
Prosecution Counsel: Crown advocateMiss Lomas
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Amount of Heroin: 28
- Imprisonment Sentence: 3.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for possession of heroin for personal use
- 02
Consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown advocate submitted that the large quantity of heroin posed a risk of sharing or theft, increasing the amount available in the island, and that pregnancy was not a mitigating factor but an aggravating feature.
- Respondent
- It was accepted that Lomas had no financial need to sell the heroin due to winning a large sum at bingo and that her addiction was so heavy the amount could have been consumed by her during seven days in Jersey.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
AG-v-de Lima; AG-v-de Sousa; AG-v-Price, Bass; AG-v-Présumé; Gregory-v-AG; Campbell, MacKenzie and Malloy-v-AG; Humberto Ribas
Sentencing for possession of controlled substances considers both quantity and risk to the public.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appropriate starting point for sentencing is five and a half years imprisonment, reduced to three and a half years due to mitigating factors, with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Obiter and limits
- Pregnancy during unlawful absence is not a mitigating factor but an aggravating feature.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
- Three and a half years imprisonment for Miss Lomas
- 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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. The Crown has withdrawn the count of possession with intent to supply and has proceeded on the basis that the heroin brought into the island by Lomas was for her own personal use.
2. The Crown advocate has nevertheless submitted that there was a risk that with such a large quantity of heroin some might have been shared or stolen, thus adding to the amount of heroin available in the island. We think that that is the proper approach and we adopt it.
3. We think, however, that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of five and a half years imprisonment.
4. This is an unusual case in the sense that Lomas, having won a large some of money, at bingo, had no need, financially, to sell the heroin. Furthermore, we accept from the reports before us that her addiction was so heavy that the amount involved, twenty eight grams, could have been consumed by her during the planned seven days in Jersey.
5. We agree with the Crown advocate that the pregnancy, particularly as it began whilst she was unlawfully at large, having absconded after compassionate bail had been granted, is not a mitigating factor. If anything, it is an aggravating feature of this case.
6. We think that the deductions allowed by the Crown advocate for the mitigating factors are right and proper and the sentence of the court, accordingly, is that you will be sentenced, Miss Lomas, to three and a half years imprisonment and we furthermore order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities AG-v-de Lima . (30th June 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/122] AG-v-de Sousa (2nd June 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/101] AG-v-Price, Bass (25th May 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/88] AG-v-Présumé (1st November 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/213] Gregory-v-AG (15th January 1997) Jersey Unreported CofA; [1997/4] Campbell, MacKenzie and Malloy-v-AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA. Humberto Ribas (9th February 1976) Court of Criminal Appeal 147 Page Last Updated: 20 Jun 2016 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.