AG v Reaney (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal) : Le Cocq) [2025] JRC 266 (17 October 2025)

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. On 21 August 2025, we sentenced Joseph John Reaney ("the Defendant") to a total of 6 years' imprisonment for two offences. That sentence was comprised of 5 years and 4 months' imprisonment for one count of possession with intent to supply cocaine and 8 months' imprisonment consecutive for refusing to provide a PIN for his mobile phone.

2. On 14 March 2025, officers executed a search warrant at the Defendant's address. During the search, officers found items relating to the supply of controlled drugs including digital scales and seal bags together with 40.89 grams of 19% purity cocaine and creatine powder.

3. During the course of the search, the Defendant arrived home whereupon he was arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to supply controlled drugs. His phone was seized and the Defendant refused to provide his PIN.

4. On the same date, the Defendant was interviewed under caution providing a 'no comment' interview to all material questions asked. He was also served with a notice requiring him to provide a passcode to the iPhone which he again refused to provide. On 31 March 2025, officers attended at La Moye Prison and served the Defendant with a formal notice dated 20 March 2025 requiring him to provide a passcode which again he refused.

5. Notwithstanding these refusals, the police were ultimately able to access the Defendant's mobile phone which was examined and found to contain messages indicating that the Defendant was supplying controlled drugs. The messages indicated that between February of this year and the date of arrest the Defendant was actively involved in offering cocaine for sale to associates and making arrangements for the delivery of drugs. The items seized during the course of the search of the Defendant's home were again consistent with the supply of drugs including the presence of creatine which, we were told by the drug expert, is a commonly used bulking agent for cocaine. Given the amount of creatine missing from one of the tubs, had it been added to a 1 ounce deal of cocaine, the result would have been some 41 grams of cocaine for supply.

6. The expert evidence provided by DC Fowler concluded: "Taking into account how the cocaine was found packaged and the evidence suggesting supply, along with the messaging data showing supply at one gram street deals, suggests to me that Reaney had the cocaine and was actively sourcing customers in order to distribute at street level for financial gain. It is my opinion that Reaney is connected within the drug scene locally and is engaged in drug dealing at the lower end of the supply scale." 7. The value of the drugs seized at the Defendant's address would, at street level, be between £6,600 and £11,000.

8. The Crown has, of course, put before us the case of Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373 and the guidelines indicate a starting point of between 8 and 10 years' imprisonment for a quantity of between 20 and 50 grams. The quantity in this case, accordingly, falls towards the upper middle of that band.

9. The position of the Defendant within the Rimmer band is to be determined by reference to the weight of the drugs and the Defendant's role and involvement as principal factors although with value forming some, although lesser, consideration. As we have already indicated the Defendant has been assessed by the Crown as a drug dealer at the lower end of the supply scale and we agree with that assessment.

10. With regard to the failure to supply the PIN, in AG v Le Guillou [2024] JRC 010 the Court said: ".... refusing to provide the access codes to your phone is serious and previous cases indicate that when such offences are committed the Court will always impose a consecutive custodial sentence and this case will be no different. There is a strong public policy interest in punishing those who attempt to prevent or frustrate investigators, particularly into this sort of offence, by refusing to provide access to their mobile telephones and the message must go out that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable and will be punished." 11. We echo those sentiments.

12. The Defendant has a previous conviction for money laundering in respect of which the predicate offence was drug related. In February 2023, he was sentenced by this Court to 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment for that offence and though he was released on licence he was recalled after he lost his employment and became uncontactable. He was then released from custody on 6 December 2024 and began to offend almost immediately upon his release.

13. The Pre-Sentencing Report suggests that he has a high risk of re-conviction in the next 12 months.

14. By way of mitigation we, of course, recognise that the Defendant has the benefit of guilty pleas which he entered on indictment and the fact that he had adverse childhood experiences. It could not be said that he was co-operative with the police, however, as he answered 'no comment' to all material questions and refused to provide the passcode to his mobile phone.

15. It is true that the purity of the cocaine is low in comparison to many cases that come before this Court and it was argued by defence counsel that we could properly reduce the starting point. The Defendant, so it was urged upon us, fully accepts his responsibility and that he should have provided access to his mobile phone.

16. We have, of course, looked at the letter provided by the Defendant's mother and considered all matters of mitigation.

17. The Crown has suggested a starting point of 9 years' imprisonment and we think that we can reduce that starting point somewhat to 8½ years as urged upon us by the defence.

18. Allowing the appropriate amount for the guilty plea and all other available mitigation, we reached a sentence for the drugs offence of 5 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

19. It is quite clear that the PIN offence is a serious one and merits a consecutive sentence and we impose a consecutive sentence of 8 months' imprisonment. This makes a total of 6 years' imprisonment. Generally, the PIN offence would merit a longer period of imprisonment but we have imposed the period that we have to reflect totality in this case.

20. We record the fact that matters of forfeiture and destruction and indeed confiscation were deferred to another date. Authorities Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373 . AG v Le Guillou [2024] JRC 010 . Page Last Updated: 29 Oct 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII