McMinn v AG [2000] JCA 132 (13 July 2000)

McMinn v AG [2000] JCA 132 (13 July 2000)

The sentence was not manifestly excessive given the commercial quantity of a Class A drug, the appellant's guilty plea (albeit late), and the limited weight of mitigating factors. The Royal Court's approach to the guilty plea discount was a material under-valuation, but even a greater discount would not have reduced the sentence below that imposed. The concurrent sentence for the property offence was academic and did not affect the total sentence.

Citation
[2000] JCA 132
Parties
Appellant: Harold John McMinn; Respondent: H. M.'s Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
13 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Drug Offences, Possession With Intent to Supply, Receiving Stolen Property
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Offences Possession With Intent to Supply Receiving Stolen Property

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold John McMinn

Appellant

H. M.'s Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 5 years' imprisonment for possession of MDMA with intent to supply was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether sufficient credit was given for the guilty plea and mitigating factors
  3. 3 Whether the concurrent sentence for receiving stolen property was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was not manifestly excessive given the commercial quantity of a Class A drug, the appellant's guilty plea (albeit late), and the limited weight of mitigating factors. The Royal Court's approach to the guilty plea discount was a material under-valuation, but even a greater discount would not have reduced the sentence below that imposed. The concurrent sentence for the property offence was academic and did not affect the total sentence.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
  • No part of the sentence served to date is to be disregarded.