AG v Cornick

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: The Deputy Bailiff:
• Judgment Date: 23 March 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] JRC 64
• Date: 23 March 2012

[2012] JRC 64

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, andJurats FisherandMarett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

and

Christopher John Cornick

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for the Defendant.

Authorities

Campbell -v- AG [1995] JLR 136 .

Inferior Number Sentencing — drugs possession — supply and possession with intent to supply — Class B.

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of: Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).

1 count of: Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).

1 count of: Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3).

Age : 25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant purchased a 1 kilogram block of cannabis resin for £8,600 intending to sell it for £10–12 per gram, to cover the costs of the purchase and generate a profit of between £1,400–3,400.

On 20th September, 2011, the police searched his home and recovered a bar of cannabis resin weighing 529.73 grams in a bag with £648.01 in cash, seven smaller blocks of cannabis weighing in total 172.88 grams, two smaller pieces of cannabis weighing in total 3.2 grams, weighing scales, a resin stained knife, and deal lists. The total weight of cannabis recovered weighed 705.84 grams.

During interview the defendant said that the recovered cannabis was the remainder of the 1 kg block. He had already sold around 292 grams and the £648.01 had come from the sales. The two smaller pieces of cannabis were for his personal use. Telephone analysis supported the admissions of the defendant and showed that many people had contacted him with a view to purchasing the drug.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas – full third credit given. No previous drugs convictions. Good work record and references. Continuing support of his family.

Previous Convictions:

8 previous convictions for inter alia breaking and entering, taking and driving away a motor vehicle, common assault, larceny, breach of probation and breach of community service.

Conclusions:

Having had regard for all the mitigation available and the amount of cannabis involved, the Crown concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to cause the Court to depart from its strict custodial sentencing policy in relation to drug trafficking offences and moved for the following sentences:-

Count 1: 12 months' imprisonment.

Count 2: 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 3: 2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £648.01 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant had admitted being concerned in the supply of cannabis. Drug trafficking offences are serious and the offence merits prison. However, the Court had regard for the content of the background reports. The defendant was substantially of good character. The guilty plea was of value. The Court decided to take a chance but warned the defendant that if he failed to comply with the court orders he could be brought back before the Court and could expect to receive a substantial prison...