Jersey Judgment

AG v Snell [2005] JRC 079 (10 June 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court determined that, given the commercial quantity of cannabis resin and personal amounts of Class A drugs, and considering the defendant's guilty plea, candour, and potential for rehabilitation, a starting point of 18 months for cannabis importation was appropriate, reduced to 12 months in the circumstances, with concurrent sentences for the other counts.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 12 months' imprisonment on Count 1 (cannabis importation)
  • 9 months' imprisonment on Count 2 (concurrent)
  • 9 months' imprisonment on Count 3 (concurrent)
  • 1 month's imprisonment on Count 4 (concurrent)
  • forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Snell

Defendant Counsel: Miss Fogarty

Amounts and remedies

  • Cannabis Resin Weight: 590.63
  • Cannabis Resin Street Value: GBP 3,331
  • Number of Packages Passed: 128

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Miss Fogarty raised the distinction in Valler regarding large amounts of different drugs and highlighted the small personal amounts of Class A drugs involved, as well as Snell's candour in admitting the offence in India.
Respondent
The Crown maintained its conclusion regarding sentencing for personal amounts and relied on established sentencing guidelines.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Finnigan v AG [2004]JRC077; Valler v AG [2002]JLR383

    Guidance for sentencing in cases of personal importation and multiple drug importation

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court determined that, given the commercial quantity of cannabis resin and personal amounts of Class A drugs, and considering the defendant's guilty plea, candour, and potential for rehabilitation, a starting point of 18 months for cannabis importation was appropriate, reduced to 12 months in the circumstances, with concurrent sentences for the other counts.

Obiter and limits

  • Signs of possible rehabilitation are encouraging and assistance will be available in prison.
  • The value of the guilty plea is questionable given the facts discovered.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 12 months' imprisonment on Count 1 (cannabis importation)
  • 9 months' imprisonment on Count 2 (concurrent)
  • 9 months' imprisonment on Count 3 (concurrent)
  • 1 month's imprisonment on Count 4 (concurrent)
  • 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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2005] JRC 079

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. Three days after he was arrested Snell pleaded guilty to the importation of a commercial quantity of cannabis resin, together with personal amounts of the addictive drug crack cocaine with heroin and diazepam.

2. It is almost beyond belief that during the 12 days that he was detained at the General Hospital he passed 128 packages that he carried inside his body. The cannabis resin had a street value of £3,331 and weighted 590.63 grams. It is quite clear that Snell is a courier and not a main dealer.

3. We followed Finnigan and the AG [2004]JRC077 for the cases of personal importation but we have also had a very close regard to Valler -v- AG [2002]JLR383, which gives guidance where more than one drug importation is involved.

4. However, Miss Fogarty raised with us an interesting legal point. Valler is clearly dealing with very large amount of different drugs. The Class A drug involved, small amounts of personal drugs, which, of course, includes the pernicious but fortunately in this jurisdiction rare import of crack cocaine.

5. There is also in Snell's favour the candour admission of the offence in India which would not otherwise have come to light. He has five convictions for possession of a Class A drug, but only one of conviction for possession with intent to supply.

6. We would question whether the guilty plea in the light of what was discovered is of any great value although he admitted to possibly receiving more from his unnamed supplier than was actually alleged against him.

7. We have carefully contrasted the two medical reports, as Miss Fogarty asked us to, and we have had close regard to the Probation Report and the Drug and Alcohol Report.

8. Clearly if he wants to help himself he will receive assistance in prison, and the signs of possible rehabilitation are certainly encouraging. We will take a starting point of 18 months for the cannabis importation offence and we can reduce that to 12 months' imprisonment in the circumstances. The personal amounts we will not depart from the Crown's conclusion and, therefore, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on Count 1; 9 months' imprisonment on Count 2; 9 months on count 3, and 1 month's imprisonment on Count 4. Those three are concurrent with Count 1. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities A. G. -V- Graham (10 th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/6]. Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001]JLR373. Finnigan -v- A. G. [2004]JRC077. Campbell -v- A. G . [1995]JLR136. Valler -v- A. G. [2002]JLR383. Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 2015 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.

Finnigan v AG [2004]JRC077

Case cited

Valler v AG [2002]JLR383

Case cited

A.G. v Graham (10th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/6]

Case cited

Rimmer Lusk & Bade v AG [2001]JLR373

Case cited

Campbell v AG [1995]JLR136

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.