AG v Melville [2004] JRC 148 (31 August 2004)

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. This defendant is to be sentenced for the possession with intent to supply of heroin found in his possession in the Royal Square in February this year. When arrested he was found to be in possession of 5 plastic bags and cash in the sum of £429.00. The cash was divided into two bundles of £200 and a further bundle being the balance of £29, each in a separate pocket. He had been observed shortly before his arrest walking with another man in the vicinity but the police have been unable to identify that man. 2. Melville denied intending to supply any of the heroin in his possession but after a trial that explanation was rejected by the Jurats and he was convicted. 5.8 grams of heroin were recovered with a street value of between £1,700 and £2,400. 3. Applying the guidelines in A. G. -v- Rimmer & Ors [2001]JLR373 the Crown Advocate has suggested a starting point of 7½ years' imprisonment. This suggestion has not been contested by defence counsel and we agree that that starting point is correct. 4. In mitigation, Melville does not have a good record but his convictions were some time ago and we do not regard them as a significant factor. There is, of course, no mitigation for a guilty plea, nor for the remorse which such a plea sometimes indicates. The long and the short of it is Melville was a street dealer in a pernicious and addictive drug. Although he was not at the higher end of the scale, he was a dealer in a not insignificant way. 5. We have taken account in mitigation of the fact that he is a heroin addict and the fact that he has during his adult life worked consistently as a carpenter and has not, we are informed by defence counsel, resorted to acquisitive crime to fund his habit. 6. We also take into account the fact that he was, at the time when this offence was committed, trying to cure his addiction, although obviously not successfully. 7. [Addressing the defendant] The Court has taken into account everything that your counsel has said, very eloquently, on your behalf. We think, however, that the Crown Advocate has made as much allowance as he can for the mitigating circumstances. The conclusions are accordingly granted and you are sentenced on Count 1: to 2 years' imprisonment, on count 2: to 6½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 6½ years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Rimmer & Ors -v- A. G. [2001]JLR373. Page Last Updated: 18 Jun 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII