AG -v- Schneider [2005] JRC 141 (12 October 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 141
- 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
The defendant was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, reflecting substantial mitigation and mercy due to grave illness, after pleading guilty to importing a large quantity of cannabis resin.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 2 years' imprisonment
- forfeiture of MG motor vehicle
- forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- request for urgent consideration of transfer to prison in England for specialist medical treatment
- no recommendation for deportation
02
Material facts
Parties
Schneider
Defendant Counsel: defence counselAttorney General
Prosecutor Counsel: Crown AdvocateAmounts and remedies
- Quantity of Cannabis Resin: 30
- Street Value of Cannabis Resin: GBP 170,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for importation of substantial quantity of cannabis resin
- 02
application of mitigation and mercy in sentencing
- 03
forfeiture of vehicle and drugs
- 04
consideration of deportation
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Defence counsel argued for a substantial discount on sentence due to the defendant's guilty plea, cooperation, references, and grave medical condition, inviting the court to exercise mercy.
- Respondent
- Crown Advocate sought forfeiture orders and highlighted the seriousness of the offence, referencing prior convictions and the lack of Interpol assistance.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR136
Sentencing for drug importation should reflect the seriousness of the offence, with mitigation for guilty plea and cooperation.
- 02
Superior Courts of Jersey Sentencing Principles
Further discount may be allowed in wholly exceptional circumstances as an act of mercy.
- 03
Custom and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999, Articles 54-56
Forfeiture of vehicles and drugs is permitted under statute.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The defendant was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, reflecting substantial mitigation and mercy due to grave illness, after pleading guilty to importing a large quantity of cannabis resin.
Obiter and limits
- Court expressed concern about lack of Interpol assistance regarding defendant's prior arrest in Holland.
- Court declined to recommend deportation due to special circumstances.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 2 years' imprisonment
- forfeiture of MG motor vehicle
- forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- request for urgent consideration of transfer to prison in England for specialist medical treatment
- no recommendation for deportation
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 BAILIFF: 1. Schneider has pleaded guilty to the importation of nearly 30 kilograms of cannabis resin. This is a very substantial quantity of a Class B drug with a street value in Jersey of approximately £170,000.
2. Schneider admitted to customs officers that he had made an earlier visit to Jersey to reconnoitre the layout of the land. He is aged 55 and he has a previous conviction in Canada for a drug trafficking offence for which he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
3. He was also apparently arrested in Holland for a drugs matter, although no criminal proceedings were instituted. The Crown Advocate has told us that no assistance was obtained from Interpol in relation to this information. This is a matter of considerable concern to the Court and we hope the Attorney General will make the appropriate strong representations in that regard.
4. There is no doubt that Schneider was fully aware that the importation of cannabis was illegal and that the likely consequences for him, if he were caught, would be serious. Nonetheless, we do not think that a courier, and we accept that he was a courier, should necessarily be placed at the top end of the appropriate band. Having regard to the case of Campbell -v- AG [1995]JLR136 and other relevant authorities we think the appropriate starting point in this case is one of 8 years' imprisonment.
5. In mitigation Schneider has pleaded guilty to the indictment and has co-operated at least to some extent with the investigating authorities. Defence counsel has placed before us a number of references which we have found helpful in relation to his background.
6. On ordinary principles the Court would have allowed a discount of 3 years for these mitigating circumstances, and we would have imposed a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment. Defence counsel has, however, every eloquently invited us to take an unusual course on the grounds of mercy. The defendant is incontrovertibly suffering from Hepatitis C, has cirrhosis of the liver, and is suffering from a number of unpleasant symptoms relating to these serious complaints and associated medical difficulties. The medical reports placed before us make it clear that the defendant is gravely ill. The prognosis is not good.
7. The circumstances of this case are, we are satisfied, wholly exceptional. We think that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we can make a further allowance by way of discount, purely as an act of mercy, so that the defendant will not spend his last years entirely in custody. We allow a further 4 years' discount. We sentence you on the single count of the indictment to 2 years' imprisonment.
8. We also request the prison authorities both here and in the United Kingdom to give urgent consideration to the transfer of the accused to a prison in England where access to specialist medical treatment, which is not available in Jersey, can if necessary be made available to the accused. As requested by the Crown Advocate we order the forfeiture of the MG motor vehicle pursuant to the Articles 54 - 56 of the Custom and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999 . We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. We have considered whether we should make a recommendation for deportation but in the special circumstances of this case we decline to do so. Authorities Campbell -v-AG [1995] JLR136. AG -v- Clark (24 th July, 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001]155. Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2 nd Ed'n): pp. 150 -151. Custom and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999, Articles 54 - 56 Breen -v- AG th September 2002 [2002]167. R -v- Nazari (1980) 3 All ER 8 80. 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.