AG -v- Tanguy [2015] JRC 036 (19 February 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] JRC 036
- 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 sentence was determined by considering the quantity of ecstasy tablets, the applicant's limited involvement, and significant mitigating factors, resulting in a reduced sentence from the starting point established by precedent.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 5 years' imprisonment on Count 1
- 1 week's imprisonment on Counts 2, 3, 5-7 (concurrent)
- 1 month's imprisonment on Count 4 (concurrent)
- forfeiture and destruction of the drugs
02
Material facts
Amounts and remedies
- Number of Ecstasy Tablets: 1,964
- Street Value of Ecstasy Tablets: GBP 40,000
- Benefit From Involvement (confiscation Order): GBP 3,964
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for importation of ecstasy tablets
- 02
mitigating factors in sentencing for drug offences
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant's advocate argued for a lower starting point due to limited involvement and presented mitigation including guilty plea, cooperation, good work record, business, references, intention to give up steroids, and family support.
- Respondent
- Crown argued for a starting point of 9½ years based on the quantity of tablets and referenced relevant case law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's prior statements
Any link in the chain of importation and supply is important and not mitigated by ignorance of the specific drug type.
- 02
Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626
Starting point for sentencing based on quantity of tablets as per precedent.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The sentence was determined by considering the quantity of ecstasy tablets, the applicant's limited involvement, and significant mitigating factors, resulting in a reduced sentence from the starting point established by precedent.
Obiter and limits
- Ignorance of the specific drug type is not a mitigating factor.
- Any link in the chain of importation and supply is important.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 5 years' imprisonment on Count 1
- 1 week's imprisonment on Counts 2, 3, 5-7 (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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. You were concerned in the importation of 1,964 ecstasy tablets with a street value of just under £40,000. You were also in possession of some steroids for your own use. Your involvement was that you agreed at short notice to pick up the package containing the drugs and you were going to take that package to another address. You thought the package contained cannabis rather than ecstasy but, as the Court has said on many occasions, that is not a mitigating factor. Your counsel has accepted, and you have accepted by the Confiscation Order, that you benefitted to the extent of £3,964 by reason of your involvement. Now we accept that your involvement in the ecstasy offence was comparatively limited but, as the Court has said before on many occasions, any link in the chain of importation and supply is important.
2. Now the Crown has referred to the case of Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626 where the starting point is between 9 and 11 years for between 1,000 and 2,500 tablets. The Crown has taken a starting point of 9½ years, presumably having regard to the quantity of tablets, but we agree with your Advocate that in view of the nature of your involvement the correct starting point is one of 9 years.
3. In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea and your cooperation with the police, your good work record, the fact that you have built up your self-employed business, the letters and references that we have received, your intention to give up steroids and the fact that you have provided support for your father since your mother passed away in August. We have also had regard to the other information on the papers before us. In all the circumstances we agree with your Advocate that the conclusions should be reduced.
4. On Count 1 the sentence is 5 years' imprisonment, on Counts 2, 3 and 5-7; I week's imprisonment, on Count 4; I month's imprisonment, all of those concurrent, making 5 years' imprisonment in all.
5. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626 . AG v Tanguy and Stewart [2008] JRC 094 . AG v Williamson [2011] JRC 232 . Extracts from Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing (3rd Edition (2011). Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 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.