AG -v- Mendes [2005] JRC 091 (06 July 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 091
- 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
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
ProsecutionDefendant
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Heroin Quantity: 5.14
- Sentence Count 2: 4.5
- Sentence Count 1: 2
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for possession of heroin with intent to supply
- 02
mitigation for guilty plea and youth
- 03
forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- 04
consideration of deportation recommendation
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
Legal principles
- 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.
Court record
Judgment
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
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.