AG v Stuart (Royal Court : Sentencing (Criminal) : MacRae) [2025] JRC 313 (20 November 2025)

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. We reserve the right to add to or amend the remarks we are about to give.

2. Thomas Stuart, you are 19 years old tomorrow. Notwithstanding your youth you have already amassed a significant criminal record. You have been subject to two separate probation orders for various offences. In 2023 you were subject to a sentence of youth detention for assault on police and obstructing police officers during a drug search. In November of that year you were sentenced to 40 days' youth custody for possession with the intent to supply of cannabis, and you are currently performing community service for driving offences, a sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court earlier this year on 24 February.

3. You appear before this Court today in relation to sixteen drug-related offences, ten committed when you were 17 years old and six committed when you were, as you still just are, 18 years old - all committed when you were living at home in St Ouen.

4. We can deal with the offences reasonably shortly.

5. On 3 March last year police officers attended your home to execute a drugs search warrant. In your bedroom the police found a quantity of drugs and associated paraphernalia and Count 1 reflects your possession of cannabis weighing just over 4 grams.

6. A month later, on 25 April last year, the police came to your house again and discovered another small quantity of cannabis weighing just under 1 gram, Count 2 of the Indictment, which was in your possession.

7. In August of last year, police on patrol stopped a motor car in St Helier. You left a block of flats nearby and put items in the boot while police were speaking to the driver of the car. The police discovered approximately 40 grams of cannabis resin in a bag attributable to you, Count 3. This led to a further search of your bedroom at home. Scales containing traces of, amongst other things, THC, various packets containing traces of cannabis and a jar with 0.36 grams of cannabis were found, that is Count 4.

8. In this and other interviews you said you were not working and you were receiving - you said - £50 a week from your mother.

9. On 2 September last year, a police officer who recognised you stopped you in St Helier and realised that you were intoxicated. You produced a bag containing a small amount of cocaine. You were arrested at Police Headquarters. Other drugs were recovered from you, and on the Indictment they are represented by Count 5, possession of 1.33 grams of cocaine, and Count 6, 23.6 grams of cannabis resin.

10. Cash was seized from you, and during the period of the various searches of you and your home address during the period covered by the two Indictments, over £9,000 of cash was recovered from you, all it seems the proceeds of or connected to drug trafficking.

11. After your arrest on 2 September, the police went to your home again and found more drugs in your bedroom, Count 7, 4.76 grams of cannabis, and Count 8 possession of 0.82 grams of THC. When you were interviewed you told the police you had been using cocaine at the Weekender Public Festival. You made no comment to questions asked in relation to the other drugs found.

12. The most significant count on the First Indictment arose from the events that took place on 13 November last year when customs officers selected a parcel, which had arrived in Jersey, for inspection. This was addressed to a Simon Dale at an address in Roseville Street. The parcel was opened, it contained 1,011 tablets containing MDMA. A tracking device was placed inside the parcel and a few hours later it was picked up by you. There was a further search of your bedroom after your arrest, and a small quantity of cannabis was found, 7.5 grams, Count 10.

13. As to the MDMA, which you assisted in the importation of and received in the way we have described, that had a street value of between about £20,000 and about £30,000, and a wholesale value of between about £6,000 and about £8,000. You gave customs officers no assistance when you were interviewed. You did give access to your mobile telephone. Messages were revealed which indicated you were involved in drug dealing and suggestive of you offering to supply the MDMA in exchange for receiving £3,000.

14. The Second Indictment relates to offences committed after your eighteenth birthday. On 4 March this year police attended your home again, this time with a drugs dog. A small amount of cannabis was found in your bedroom, but the dog demonstrated a significant change of behaviour in the garden, and in this area police unearthed a buried safe and some keys. The safe was seized and opened at Police Headquarters. It contained a very substantial amount of cannabis, over 28 bars with a total weight of 2.795 kilograms. This is Count 1 of the Second Indictment, possession with intent to supply cannabis resin.

15. Also seized on the same day was a quantity of cannabis, Count 2 of the Second Indictment, totalling just under 40 grams, just under a gram of THC in liquid form, Count 3, and 9 MDMA tablets, Count 4. Those matters, Counts 2, 3 and 4, are covered by possession charges. In interview, you told the police you had never worked and you gave them access to another mobile phone.

16. You also fall to be sentenced for being concerned in the supply of MDMA by reason of the analysis of the contents of that mobile phone which revealed that you had been supplying 10 MDMA tablets on 1 April, so after your last Court appearance and whilst on community service, and you also agreed to supply 2.24 grams of cannabis resin on the same day, 1 April, and that is represented by Count 6. In interview you made no comment.

17. And as to the cannabis at Count 1 on the Second Indictment, that had a wholesale value of between £33,000 and £50,000, and a street value of between about £42,000 and £70,000.

18. The Crown says - and we accept - that you are a trusted dealer, you were close to those who could access large quantities of drugs, and it is plain to us you have been making a living selling controlled drugs, including Class A drugs, over a significant period.

19. You pleaded guilty to all the Counts at the first opportunity, and accordingly you will receive full credit for those pleas of guilty. You have been in custody since 17 April, the equivalent of 11 months' youth detention.

20. We turn to the Crown's conclusions on sentence. The guidelines indicate a starting point of between 9 and 11 years' imprisonment for between 1,000 and 2,500 units of Class A drugs in tablet or in tablet form. In this case we are dealing with over 1,000 MDMA tables with a minimum street value of £20,000 and a minimum wholesale value of £8,000. The Crown says you were not directly responsible for the importation, but you pleaded guilty to an offence of evading the prohibition on importation, so you were a participant in the importation scheme and the intended recipient of these drugs.

21. The Crown invites the Court to adopt a starting point of 9 years' custody in relation to Count 9 on the First Indictment. Your counsel accepts that, and that is the starting point we fix.

22. In relation to Count 5 on the Second Indictment, the Crown say that the supply of 10 MDMA tablets put you at the lower end of the first band and ask for a starting point of 7 years' youth detention, which your Advocate accepts is appropriate, and we fix as the starting point.

23. As to Count 1 on the Second Indictment, the possession and intent to supply of a substantial amount of cannabis resin, quantities between 1 and 10 kilograms yield a starting point of between 2 and 6 years' imprisonment. The Crown moves for a starting point of 2 years and 9 months' youth detention, which again is not challenged, and we fix that as the starting point.

24. As this case involves a substantial quantity of more than one drug, a Valler uplift needs to be considered in respect of the starting point for the offence on Count 9 of the First Indictment. The Crown said this is not appropriate owing to your age. We agree. A different conclusion may have been reached by the Court had you been 21 or over when committing these offences.

25. The author of the Pre-Sentence Report observes that these were deliberate and precisely orchestrated offences. Your operation involved secure storage, a safe, possession of multiple mobile phones, significant quantities of a variety of controlled substances, suggesting these offences were not impulsive or opportunistic but involved careful preparation and planning with steps taken to avoid detection. We accept all those observations.

26. The report goes on to say that you are high risk of reconviction. The main aspects of mitigation available to you are your early guilty pleas and your age. We are well aware of the contents of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 ("the Law"), which for the purposes of the offences on the First Indictment limits the maximum sentence to 12 months' youth custody unless the Court exercises its powers under Article 5 of the Law. The offence at Count 9 of the First Indictment is a qualifying offence as the maximum sentence for that is life imprisonment. Under Article 5 of the Law we need to form the opinion that none of the other matters by which you may be dealt with are suitable, and if that opinion is formed the Court may impose a sentence of more than 12 months' custody in relation to that offence. Certainly you could have no complaint today if the Court were to form the view that there is no other suitable method by which you might be dealt with, and indeed two of the Jurats have formed that opinion.

27. You have a bad record, and you have chosen to deliberately involve yourself in a substantial importation of a significant quantity of a Class A drug into Jersey. Indeed for the purpose of imposing a community service order of the length that we are going to impose on you, the Court as a whole has taken the view that the custody threshold is passed in this case, and taken the view that the totality of the offending is so serious that ostensibly only a custodial sentence can be justified, but it has had to ask itself whether another route can be taken having regard to the mitigation advanced on your behalf.

28. It is right to say that prior to your Advocate addressing the Court, there was no question but that you would be commencing a term of youth custody today. But by a majority, three votes to two, the Jurats have just been persuaded to impose a different sentence. We have been addressed today by reference to your youth, a suggestion that there has been a delay in this case, your background as set out in the pre-sentence reports, the time you have served and the prospect of your rehabilitation.

29. Three of the Jurats have concluded that owing to these matters, in particular of your age, you are to be given a last chance today by this Court. The Court understands that it is taking a real risk, but it is prepared on this final occasion to put its trust in you and to give you one final chance. You must understand if you re-offend in any way or fail to complete the order that we are about to impose, then you will be returned to this Court and you will be sent to La Moye. Do you understand? We hope that you do understand, that and your family members here in Court today will give such a support as they can give you. But ultimately it is down to you, Mr Stuart, to turn your life around, because you are being given a final chance today.

30. So the sentences that we impose are as follows:- (i) on Count 9, we order you to perform 456 hours' community service, equivalent to 3 years' youth detention, (ii) on Count 1 of the Second Indictment, 180 hours' concurrent, equivalent to 12 months' youth detention, and (iii) on Count 5 of the Second Indictment, 312 hours, equivalent to 24 months' youth detention, all to run concurrently, making a total of 456 hours.

31. We make no order in relation to the outstanding community service order which will continue. On those three Counts to which we have referred, we order you to perform 2 years' probation concurrent.

32. We note the purposes of that order: (i) That you should engage in a structured substance misuse programme focusing on cannabis use, (which we understand you have been taking since the age of 13), the impact of drug related offending including education on the harms of drug distribution and support to cease your use. (ii) That you should engage with the assistance of probation with Skills Jersey, or other similar services, to support you getting a job for the first time, including building a CV. Employment is the most likely route for you to get out of this cycle of offending in which you have become involved. (iii) There will be consideration of referral to trauma informed counselling support to address the impact of your adverse childhood experiences, and (iv) You are to participate in a cognitive behaviour programme aimed at improving your thinking, decision making and problem-solving skills. There is no separate penalty on the balance of the counts.

33. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and two mobile phones seized in this case.

34. So, Mr Stuart, it is now all down to you, and we hope not to see you in this Court again. But if we do it is because you are on your way back to La Moye. Do you understand? Authorities Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 . Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999. Magistrate's Sentencing Guidelines. Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014. Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. Bonnar and Noon v Attorney General [2001] JLR 626 . Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373 . Attorney General v Brookfield-Dean [2018] JRC 230A Campbell v Attorney General [1995] JLR 136 . Valler v Attorney General [2002] JLR 383 . Attorney General v Cameron [2008] JRC 182 . Page Last Updated: 18 Dec 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII