AG v Edingborough [2000] JRC 7 (20 January 2000)

AG v Edingborough [2000] JRC 7 (20 January 2000)

The seriousness and scale of the defendant's commercial drug dealing necessitate a custodial sentence, but mitigation is allowed for youth, cooperation with police, exoneration of others, and guilty plea, resulting in a reduced sentence.

Citation
[2000] JRC 7
Parties
Defendant: Edingborough; Prosecutor: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Sentencing, Mitigation
Criminal Law Drug Offences Sentencing Mitigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edingborough

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for substantial commercial drug dealing by a first-time offender
  2. 2 Consideration of mitigation for cooperation with police and guilty plea

Ratio Decidendi

The seriousness and scale of the defendant's commercial drug dealing necessitate a custodial sentence, but mitigation is allowed for youth, cooperation with police, exoneration of others, and guilty plea, resulting in a reduced sentence.

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 6 months' Youth Detention on count 1, 3 years 8 months' Youth Detention on count 2, 3 months' Youth Detention on count 3, 1 month's Youth Detention on count 4, 4 years' Youth Detention on count 5, all concurrent (total 4 years)
  • forfeiture and destruction of the drugs