Jersey Judgment

Stevenson v AG [2004] JRC 205 (22 November 2004)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

A sentence of 1 month's imprisonment for a third offence of cannabis possession is not manifestly excessive, but a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment for non-aggravated obstruction of a police officer is manifestly excessive and should be reduced to 1 month.

Court disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal out of time granted
  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Sentence of 2 months' imprisonment for obstructing a police officer quashed and substituted with 1 month's imprisonment to run consecutively to other sentences

02

Material facts

Parties

Alexander Stevenson

Applicant

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence for Breaking and Entry and Larceny: months imprisonment 15
  • Sentence for Possession of Cannabis Resin: months imprisonment 1
  • Sentence for Obstructing a Police Officer (original): months imprisonment 2
  • Sentence for Obstructing a Police Officer (substituted): months imprisonment 1
  • Total Sentence (original): months imprisonment 18
  • Total Sentence (after Appeal): months imprisonment 17

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Sentence Substitution

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The sentence for possession of a small quantity of cannabis should be non-custodial according to Magistrates' Court guidelines; the applicant was not drunk or abusive and only refused to leave the hospital, so the sentence for obstruction was excessive.
Respondent
The applicant had previous convictions under misuse of drugs legislation justifying a custodial sentence; the applicant's refusal to leave the hospital disrupted the Accident and Emergency Department.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Magistrates' Court guidelines; misuse of drugs legislation

    Sentences for repeat drug offences may be custodial even for small quantities.

  2. 02

    General sentencing principles; AG-v-Gaffney (1995) Jersey Unreported

    A short custodial sentence may be justified for refusal to obey police instructions, but must be proportionate to the circumstances.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

A sentence of 1 month's imprisonment for a third offence of cannabis possession is not manifestly excessive, but a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment for non-aggravated obstruction of a police officer is manifestly excessive and should be reduced to 1 month.

Obiter and limits

  • The applicant can regard himself as fortunate that a relatively modest sentence was imposed for the totality of the offending.

Court disposition

appeal allowed in part

  • Application for leave to appeal out of time granted
  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Sentence of 2 months' imprisonment for obstructing a police officer quashed and substituted with 1 month's imprisonment to run consecutively to other sentences

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2004] JRC 205

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. Alexander Stevenson pleaded guilty on 9 th July, 2004, to 1 count of breaking and entry and larceny by pushing a scaffold pole through the window of a jeweller's shop and stealing watches; 1 count of possession of cannabis resin; and 1 count of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.

2. On the first count he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, on the second count, to 1 month's imprisonment and on the third count to 2 months' imprisonment, and all these sentences were ordered to run consecutively, making a total sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.

3. Viewed in the round the applicant can regard himself as fortunate that a relatively modest sentence was imposed for the totality of the offending. The task of this Court, however, is not to examine the totality of the offending, but to examine the propriety of each of the two sentences against which the applicant seeks leave to appeal, namely the sentence of 1 month for possession of cannabis, and 2 months' for obstructing a police officer.

4. So far as the offence of possession of cannabis is concerned, the applicant has drawn our attention to guidelines in the Magistrates' Court which might appear to indicate that a non-custodial sentence would ordinarily be imposed for the possession of a quarter gram of cannabis which was a very small quantity. However, this was the third occasion upon which the applicant had committed an infraction of the misuse of drugs legislation, and applying the usual test, which this Court is bound to apply, we cannot find that a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment for a third offence of possession of cannabis is manifestly excessive.

5. So far as the offence of obstructing a police officer is concerned, the facts of this offence, as put to the Court below, were that at about ten minutes before midnight on Wednesday 10 th March, 2004, police officers were directed to go to the Accident and Emergency Department of the General Hospital following a report of a patient causing a disturbance. The applicant had gone to the hospital seeking medicine for alleviation of back pain and had been asked to leave the premises. The applicant had refused to leave stating that he had nowhere to sleep and that he wanted a bed for the night. The applicant told us that there was a misunderstanding in that respect and that he had not wanted a bed at the hospital, but had wanted a bed at the police station. Nothing really turns upon that, because the police officers asked the applicant to leave the hospital and he refused. The Accident and Emergency Department was relatively busy and the actions of the applicant were inconsistent with the proper running of that Department.

6. The applicant, having refused to obey the police officer's instruction to leave the Hospital, was arrested for refusing to obey lawful orders.

7. The applicant told us that he had not been drunk on this occasion, he had not been abusive, and apart from refusing to comply with the police officer's instruction to leave, he had done nothing wrong. Those submissions of the applicant are consistent with what the Court below was told. The Court considers that a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment for this conduct was manifestly excessive. We think that a short sentence of imprisonment would have been justified, but we do not think that a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment can in all the circumstances be justified for this refusal without aggravating circumstances to obey a police instruction.

8. We therefore grant the application for leave to appeal out of time. We grant leave to appeal and we quash the sentence of 2 months' imprisonment imposed on count 3; and substitute therefor a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment to run consecutively to the other sentences imposed by the Royal Court on 9 th July. To that extent the appeal is allowed. Authorities Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp. 64-7. Ibid (2 nd Ed'n - Updated to Nov '03): pp.182-3. AG-v-Gaffney (5 th June, 1995) Jersey Unreported; [1995/101]. Page Last Updated: 18 Jun 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG-v-Gaffney (5th June, 1995) Jersey Unreported; [1995/101]

Case cited

misuse of drugs legislation

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.