AG v Hare [2004] JRC 026 (12 February 2004)

AG v Hare [2004] JRC 026 (12 February 2004)

The defendant is sentenced as a minder, not a dealer, but his involvement is serious given the quantity of drugs and his criminal history; mitigation for guilty plea and personal circumstances is acknowledged but does not warrant further reduction beyond the Crown Advocate's allowance.

Citation
[2004] JRC 026
Parties
Defendant: Hare; Prosecution: Crown Advocate
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 February 2004
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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hare

Defendant

Crown Advocate

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 appropriate sentence for possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply
  2. 2 assessment of defendant's role as minder versus dealer
  3. 3 effect of previous convictions and personal circumstances on sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is sentenced as a minder, not a dealer, but his involvement is serious given the quantity of drugs and his criminal history; mitigation for guilty plea and personal circumstances is acknowledged but does not warrant further reduction beyond the Crown Advocate's allowance.

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 18 months' imprisonment on count 2
  • 5 years' imprisonment on count 4