Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Mendes [2005] JRC 091 (06 July 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Mitigation for guilty plea, youth, and Social Enquiry Report justified reduction from 7 years to 4½ years' imprisonment; concurrent sentences appropriate; forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Court disposition

conviction and sentencing

Orders

  • 4½ years' imprisonment on Count 2
  • 2 years' imprisonment on Count 1, to run concurrently
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Heroin Quantity: 5.14
  • Sentence Count 2: 4.5
  • Sentence Count 1: 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown suggested a starting point of 7 years, considered mitigation, and decided not to apply for deportation recommendation.
Respondent
The defence did not dispute the starting point and relied on mitigation including guilty plea, youth, and Social Enquiry Report.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Authorities cited: Rimmer, Lusk & Bade -v- A. G. [2001]JLR373; A. G. -v- Banach (4th January, 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001]1; A. G. -v- Viveiros (19th February 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001]42; A. G. -v- Bisson (6th February, 2004) Jersey Unreported [2004]JRC024.

    Starting point for sentencing in drug supply cases is 7 years, subject to mitigation.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Mitigation for guilty plea, youth, and Social Enquiry Report justified reduction from 7 years to 4½ years' imprisonment; concurrent sentences appropriate; forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Obiter and limits

  • Non-nationals committing serious offences risk recommendation for deportation.

Court disposition

conviction and sentencing

  • 4½ years' imprisonment on Count 2
  • 2 years' imprisonment on Count 1, to run concurrently
  • 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

[2005] JRC 091

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. This defendant was found in possession of 5.14 grams of heroin of which two and half were for onward supply and the rest was for his own use. The defendant is a heroin addict and no doubt he intended to sell the drugs to fund his own habit. He has an appalling record although there are only two previous offences for drugs.

2. The Crown has suggested a starting point of 7 years. This is not disputed by the defence and we agree it is the correct starting point. In mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty and he is entitled to a full credit for that. There is, in addition, residual youth and the contents of the Social Enquiry Report. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the Crown has made sufficient deduction for these matters and in the circumstances we agree the conclusions.

3. The sentence is therefore 4½ years' imprisonment on Count 2, and 2 years' imprisonment on Count 1, to run concurrently. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

4. The Crown said it had carefully considered whether to apply for recommendation for your deportation, but had decided not to do so; but you must realise that where non-nationals commit serious offences then there is a risk of a recommendation for deportation. Authorities Rimmer, Lusk & Bade -v- A. G. [2001]JLR373. A. G. -v- Banach (4th January, 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001]1. A. G. -v- Viveiros (19 th February 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001]42. A. G. -v- Bisson (6 th February, 2004) Jersey Unreported [2004]JRC024. Page Last Updated: 14 Jul 2016 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.

Rimmer, Lusk & Bade -v- A. G. [2001]JLR373

Case cited

A. G. -v- Banach (4th January, 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001]1

Case cited

A. G. -v- Viveiros (19th February 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001]42

Case cited

A. G. -v- Bisson (6th February, 2004) Jersey Unreported [2004]JRC024

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.