AG v Pick
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal Sentencing / Judgment After Guilty Plea
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Given the accused's previous drug convictions and repeated breaches of probation orders, but taking into account his guilty plea, cooperation with the police, and present attempts to avoid drugs, the court reduced the conclusions and imposed concurrent custodial sentences totaling 3 months, together with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Court disposition
Sentenced to imprisonment on all three counts, concurrent, with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Orders
- Count 1: 3 months' imprisonment.
- Count 2: 1 month' imprisonment, concurrent.
- Count 3: 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
- Total sentence: 3 months.
- Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
02
Material facts
Parties
The Attorney General
Applicant Counsel: N.M. Santos Costa, Esq., Crown AdvocateDenzil Mottram Pick
Accused Counsel: Advocate J.C. GollopAmounts and remedies
- Count 1 Imprisonment (months): 3
- Count 2 Imprisonment (months): 1
- Count 3 Imprisonment (months): 3
- Total Sentence (months): 3
- Number of Ecstasy Tablets Initially Found: 5
- Additional Ecstasy Tablets Found in Car: 15
- Age of Accused: 24
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Judgment After Guilty Plea
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
What sentence should be imposed for three counts of possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs(Jersey) Law 1978?
- 02
How should previous drug convictions and prior breaches of non-custodial orders affect sentence?
- 03
What discount should be given for guilty plea and cooperation?
Party arguments
- Respondent
- Mitigation relied on personal use and a guilty plea, with submissions assisted by references to A.G v Rowe and A.G v Perkins.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Judgment, paragraphs 1-2
Previous drug convictions and a record of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences are aggravating factors in sentencing.
- 02
Judgment, paragraph 2
A guilty plea, cooperation with the police, and efforts to keep clear of drugs justify a discount in sentence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Given the accused's previous drug convictions and repeated breaches of probation orders, but taking into account his guilty plea, cooperation with the police, and present attempts to avoid drugs, the court reduced the conclusions and imposed concurrent custodial sentences totaling 3 months, together with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Obiter and limits
- The court distinguished A.G v Rowe and A.G v Perkins because neither involved previous drug convictions, and Rowe involved only one minor charge.
- The court noted that Rowe and Perkins were unreported Jersey cases.
Court disposition
Sentenced to imprisonment on all three counts, concurrent, with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
- Count 1: 3 months' imprisonment.
- Count 2: 1 month' imprisonment, concurrent.
- Count 3: 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
- Total sentence: 3 months.
- 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
2000/223 3 pages
ROYAL COURT (Samedi Division) 10th November, 2000. Before: Jurat Mrs, J.G.B. Myles, Lieutenant Bailiff, and Jurats Rumfitt, and Allo. The Attorney General -v- Denzil Mottram Pick 3 counts of possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs(Jersey) Law 1978: Count 1: Ecstasy Count 2: Cannabis Count 3: Ecstasy Age: 24. Plea: Guilty Details of Offence: Arrested in possession of 5 ecstasy tablets - further 15 tablets and personal amount of cannabis discovered in Pick’s car. Originally claimed drugs in car must have been put there by supplier who he refused to name. Eventually admitted to possession of these. Details of Mitigation: Personal use. Guilty plea. Previous Convictions: Several including offences for driving infractions; DIC; possession of cannabis; possession of utensils for drug abuse. Conclusions: Count 1: 6 month’s imprisonment. Count 2: 1 month’s imprisonment, concurrent. Count 3: 6 month’s imprisonment, concurrent. Sentence & Observations of Court: Count 1: 3 month’s imprisonment. Count 2: 1 month’s imprisonment concurrent Count 3: 3 month’s imprisonment concurrent N.M. Santos Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate Advocate J.C. Gollop for the accused.
JUDGMENT THE LIEUTENANT BAILIFF: 1. We have listened to everything you have said Mr Gollop and have looked at the cases of A.G -v- Rowe (18th June, 1999) Jersey Unreported, and A.G -v- Perkins (25th August, 2000) Jersey Unreported, but neither of them involved previous drug convictions, and indeed there was only one minor charge against Rowe.
2. In this case there are two previous drug convictions, albeit cannabis on the last occasion, 4 years ago, but there is considerable evidence in Pick’s record of an inability to abide by non-custodial sentences. Probation Orders have been breached on several occasions. Nonetheless, we have allowed an appropriate discount for his guilty plea, for his co-operation with the Police, and for his present attempts to keep clear of drugs, so we feel able to reduce the conclusions slightly.
3. Stand up Pick. You are sentenced on count 1 to 3 month’s imprisonment; on count 2 to 1 month’s imprisonment; and on count 3 to 3 months imprisonment, all concurrent. Therefore the total sentence is 3 months, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities A.G -v- Rowe ( 18th June, 1999) Jersey Unreported. A.G -v- Perkins (25th August, 200) Jersey Unreported. A.G -v- Buesnel (21st August, 2000) Jersey Unreported. X
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.