Jersey Judgment

AG v Smale [2002] JRC 194A (11 October 2002)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The sentence was determined based on the quantity of cannabis resin, the defendant's role in supply, early guilty plea, cooperation with police, and mitigating factors, referencing established sentencing guidelines.

Court disposition

conviction and custodial sentence

Orders

  • Smale sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment on all counts to run concurrently.
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

02

Material facts

Parties

Smale

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Bell

Amounts and remedies

  • Total Cannabis Resin Seized: 4,012.01
  • Total Street Value: GBP 23,040
  • Sentence Length: years 2.5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Smale admitted holding cannabis resin for a supplier, cooperated with police, pleaded guilty early, and had no prior drug offences.
Respondent
The prosecution relied on the role of 'warehouse men' in drug distribution and referenced sentencing guidelines for class B drugs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Campbell and Ors -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA

    Starting point for supplying class B drugs involving one to ten kilograms is two to six years imprisonment.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The sentence was determined based on the quantity of cannabis resin, the defendant's role in supply, early guilty plea, cooperation with police, and mitigating factors, referencing established sentencing guidelines.

Obiter and limits

  • Minders or 'warehouse men' of drugs play a vital part in the distribution of illegal substances and can expect to be sentenced accordingly.
  • Cooperation with police short of naming the supplier was considered as a mitigating factor.

Court disposition

conviction and custodial sentence

  • Smale sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment on all counts to run concurrently.
  • Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2002] JRC 194A

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. When Smale stopped his van in St. Saviour's road on Friday 12 th July to answer his mobile phone he was approached by police officers. A search of the van revealed four 'nine bars' of cannabis resin and a further two 'nine bars' in a golf bag. That was a total 1,499.79 grams with a street value of £8,640. A search of Smale's room at his home initially revealed more cannabis resin, but eventually in the annexe of the house Smale showed the police a further ten 'bars' totalling 2,512.22 grams of cannabis resin with a total street value of £14,400.

2. In interviews Smale has admitted that he was holding the cannabis resin for a supplier, whom he declines to name, no doubt because he fears for the consequences if he did so. We have to say that minders or 'warehouse men' of drugs play a vital part in the distribution of these illegal substances and can expect to be sentenced accordingly.

3. At the age of 31 Smale has a bad criminal record but nothing related to drug offences and he has not been in custody before. There was a very early guilty plea and he has co-operated with the police, short of naming his supplier which might have saved him a prison sentence. He showed the police the further four 'nine bars' - there were twenty in all - and admitted supplying them. In that respect, as Advocate Bell has pointed out, he has written his own indictment. He admits that he would have supplied some of the cannabis, and rather than cash he would have taken cannabis in return. So he clearly knows his supplier very well.

4. The appeal case of Campbell and Ors -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA gives a starting point of between two and six years for supplying class B dugs involving one to ten kilograms and we have here four kilograms. We are not going to alter the starting point, which appears to be completely reasonable, but we are not certain, on reflection, that sufficient allowance has been made for the early guilty plea and the co-operation with the police and the other many mitigating factors. When I say co-operation with the police that is, of course, co-operation short of naming the supplier.

5. Smale, on count one you are sentenced to one and a half years' imprisonment; on count 2 to 15 month's imprisonment; on counts 3, 4 and 5 one month's imprisonment; on count 6 two and a half years' imprisonment; on count 7 one and a half years' imprisonment and all those sentences to run concurrently making a total of two and half years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Campbell and Ors. -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA. AG -v- Cameron and ors. (21 st November 1997) Jersey Unreported [1997/209]. AG -v- McCool and Heys (9 th March 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/45] AG -v- Croxton and Jenkins (11 th October 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/196] AG -v- Sa (17 th November 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/229] Page Last Updated: 21 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Campbell and Ors -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA

Case cited

AG -v- Cameron and ors. (21st November 1997) Jersey Unreported [1997/209]

Case cited

AG -v- McCool and Heys (9th March 2000) Jersey Unreported [2000/45]

Case cited

AG -v- Croxton and Jenkins (11th October 2000) Jersey Unreported [2000/196]

Case cited

AG -v- Sa (17th November 2000) Jersey Unreported [2000/229]

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.