AG -v- Davis [2005] JRC 075 (03 June 2005)
Despite the seriousness of the offence and the usual custodial starting point, the defendant's strong mitigation justified a non-custodial sentence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 075
- Parties
- Defendant: [Defendant Name Not Provided]; Prosecutor: Attorney General
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 03 June 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
- Outcome
- non-custodial sentence imposed
- Legal Topics
- Drug Offences, Sentencing, Mitigation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
[Defendant Name Not Provided]
Defendant
Attorney General
Prosecutor
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Appropriate sentence for possession of cannabis resin and ecstasy for personal use
- 2 Consideration of mitigation in sentencing for drug offences
Ratio Decidendi
Despite the seriousness of the offence and the usual custodial starting point, the defendant's strong mitigation justified a non-custodial sentence.
Court Disposition
non-custodial sentence imposed
Orders
- Community Service Order of 240 hours
- Probation Order of one year with conditions to comply with Drug and Alcohol Service requirements, attend as directed, abstain from controlled drugs, and submit to random drug tests
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. This defendant had 1 kilo of cannabis resin and 50 ecstasy tablets, but it is accepted that it was for his own personal use. He has a recreational drug habit and had bought them in the UK because they were much cheaper there. 2. We have to consider first a starting point. On the ecstasy having regard to the case of Finnegan -v- A. G . [2004]JRC077 we think the correct starting point would be one of 4 years. Taking into account the fact that there was also the cannabis resin, we think we should add 6 months, therefore, a starting point of 4½ years. 3. There is, however, powerful mitigation in this case. The defendant pleaded guilty and was very co-operative. He has no previous record apart from one conviction for the possession of cannabis. He has an extremely good work record. He is assessed at being at low risk of re-offending. Whilst in prison he has come to realise that he needs to stop taking drugs and the Drug and Alcohol Report and the Social Enquiry Report support this. There are also letters and references. 4. The correct sentence in our judgment would be one of 2 years' imprisonment. However, we have decided that, given all the particularly strong mitigation in this case, we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence. 5. We are going to impose a Community Service Order of 240 hours and because we want to ensure that you attend the Drug and Alcohol Service we are going to make a Probation Order of one year on condition that you comply with the treatment goals agreed with Drug and Alcohol, you attend the Service as directed, and that you abstain from all controlled drugs and be subjected to random drug tests. 6. We wish to emphasise to you, that this is your chance. Should you fail, in other words, should you not comply with Drug and Alcohol's requirements for drug tests or should you not turn up and carry out the community service properly then you will be brought back here and there certainly will be a prison sentence, and as we indicated earlier we think the correct level of sentence would be one of 2 years' imprisonment. 7. The opportunity is yours, but the risk if you fail will be that you will go back to prison. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. We confirm a not guilty verdict on Counts 3 and 4. Authorities Finnegan -v- A. G . [2004]JRC077. Page Last Updated: 14 Jul 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII