AG -v- Murphy [2009] JRC 155 (04 August 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] JRC 155
- 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
Given the substantial quantity of heroin, the defendant's role as a minder, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment is appropriate.
Court disposition
conviction and sentence imposed
Orders
- 8 years' imprisonment for the defendant
- Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs
02
Material facts
Parties
Ryan Murphy
Defendant Counsel: defence counselThe Crown
Prosecution Counsel: Crown AdvocateAmounts and remedies
- Quantity of Heroin: 709
- Street Value of Heroin: GBP 709,000
- Wholesale Value of Heroin (lower Estimate): GBP 200,000
- Wholesale Value of Heroin (upper Estimate): GBP 350,000
- Length of Imprisonment: years 8
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for possession with intent to supply a substantial quantity of heroin
- 02
Mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing for drug offences
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Murphy claimed he thought the drugs were cannabis and not heroin, and that he was acting as a minder, not a principal dealer. Defence counsel submitted for a lower starting point than 15 years.
- Respondent
- The Crown Advocate argued for a starting point of 15 years' imprisonment in line with guideline cases, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and Murphy's proximity to the dealer.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-AG [2001] JLR 373
Those who traffic in heroin or assist dealers must expect severe sentences.
- 02
General sentencing principles
Mitigation for early guilty plea and exoneration of others involved.
- 03
Whelan's aspects on Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey
Possession of substantial quantities of drugs is an aggravating factor.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Given the substantial quantity of heroin, the defendant's role as a minder, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment is appropriate.
Obiter and limits
- Heroin is a vicious and addictive drug and those who traffic in it or help those who deal in it must expect severe sentences.
- The harm that might have been done to society if this quantity of heroin had found its way onto the streets of Jersey is almost incalculable.
Court disposition
conviction and sentence imposed
- 8 years' imprisonment for the defendant
- 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 commissioner: 1. This defendant has pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply of 709 grams of heroin. That is a very substantial quantity with a street value of £709,000 and a wholesale value of between £200,000 and £350,000.
2. The Crown has agreed that Murphy is to be regarded as a minder, although in sentencing terms that is not a significant mitigating factor. A person who is entrusted with £700,000 worth of drugs is clearly fairly close to the dealer. Murphy claims that he thought the drugs were cannabis but that is not a mitigating factor; he could have found out with minimal effort that it was heroin. He removed the scales from the bag and chose not to look further inside. It is also, in one sense, an aggravating feature that he left the heroin at the house of his girlfriend's parents and potentially involved them in his offending.
3. The Crown Advocate has taken a starting point of 15 years' imprisonment. That is in line with the guideline case of Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 and despite the submissions of defence counsel, we think it is correct.
4. In mitigation Ryan has admitted his offending at an early stage and pleaded guilty to the Indictment. He exonerated his girlfriend and her parents which mitigates the fact that he hid the drugs at their home. He is a young man, now aged 24. We are reluctant to send young men of his age to prison for a very long time. On the other hand, the harm that might have been done to society if this quantity of heroin had found its way onto the streets of Jersey is almost incalculable. As this Court has said on so many occasions, heroin is a vicious and addictive drug and those who traffic in it or help those who deal in it must expect severe sentences.
5. Ryan, you knew what you were doing, you told the Police that you were not coerced, and you must be taken therefore to have accepted the consequences of what you were doing. We have read your letter very carefully and we are glad to see that you are making the most of your time in prison. We have also read the letters from your parents and from other members of your family and friends and it is very sad for them that you have placed yourself in this position. At the end of the day we have to punish you for what you did.
6. The conclusions are granted and you are sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.
7. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 . Whelan's aspects on Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. Welsh-v-AG 2002/72. AG-v-Smith [2009] JRC 063 . AG-v-Hume, Carter and Allen [2005] JRC 051 . Page Last Updated: 29 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.