AG -v- Thompson [2015] JRC 165 (07 August 2015)

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment for the production of cannabis, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of cannabis, which was for personal use, and two counts of supplying cannabis. The amount of the production is slightly unclear but there were certainly twelve plants and, depending on the final yield, it was somewhere between 336 grams and 1,008 grams. If at the higher end you would be within what are known as the Campbell guidelines ( Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 ). The plants were considered to be in very healthy condition, the best the interviewing officer had ever seen, it was said, and so it seemed likely, and this has not really been disputed before us, that the yield would have been towards the higher end of the scale. The photographs which the Court has been shown indicate that this was a serious operation; it was clinically conducted and quite sophisticated.

2. It is a sad case that we have before us because the legislature treats the production of cannabis as a drug trafficking offence. It attracts up to 14 years' imprisonment and, as has been said in some of the cases, the growing of cannabis represents a continuing daily breach of the law because they need tending each day and, no doubt, that breach therefore continued over many months in this particular case.

3. We have treated you as a first offender. We have treated the supply offences as, Advocate Landick has described, as social supply although whether that makes any significant difference in the context of the offences which are before us at the moment, is perhaps marginal. We have been considering at some length whether to impose a sentence of community service or a custodial sentence and your counsel has said everything that could possibly be said on your behalf. We think in the circumstances of the case that it is right, given the continuing breach of the law and given your age, you obviously did know better, that we need to impose a custodial sentence and for those reasons the Crown's conclusions are granted.

4. You will accordingly go to prison for a period in total of 15 months on Count 1, 12 months on Count 2, 1 month on Count 3, 12 months on Count 4 and 12 months on Count 5, all to be served concurrently, making a total of 15 months' imprisonment.

5. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the utensils.

6. The question of the benefit figure is in dispute and therefore we defer that matter for further investigation. Authorities Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 . AG v Lane [2015] JRC 026 . AG v Read [2012] JRC 004 . AG v Rodrigues [2014] JRC 075 . AG v Williamson [2011] JRC 232 . AG v Mills [2009] JRC 235 . AG v Bisson [2009] JRC 151 . Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII