Attorney General v Buesnel

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats Blampied, Gruchy, Le Ruez, Herbert, Rumfitt, Potter, de Veulle, Jones and Quérée:
• Judgment Date: 21 August 1996
• Date: 21 August 1996

ROYAL COURT

Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats Blampied, Gruchy, Le Ruez, Herbert, Rumfitt, Potter, de Veulle, Jones and Qure:

M.C. St. J. Birt, Q.C., Attorney General, for the Crown;

D.E. Le Cornu for the accused.

Cases cited:

(1) Att. Gen. v. Young, 1980 J.J. 281, not followed.

(2) Campbell (A.T.) v. Att. Gen., 1995 JLR 136.

(3) R. v. Aramah (1982), 76 Cr. App. R. 190; 4 Cr. App. R. (S.) 407; [1983] Crim. L.R. 271; 147 J.P. 217; 127 Sol. Jo. 85, dictum of Lord Lane, C.J. applied.

Additional cases cited by counsel:

Att. Gen. v. Bull, Royal Ct., April 26th, 1991, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. de la Haye (J.A.), 1995 JLR N-24.

Att. Gen. v. Hickson, Royal Ct., June 7th, 1991, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. McDonough, Royal Ct., May 24th, 1996, unreported.

Att. Gen. v. Pinto, May 24th, 1996, unreported.

Kramer v. Att. Gen., 1992 JLR N-10.

R. v. Cox (1993), 15 Cr. App. R. (S.) 216.

R. v. Diamond (1985), 7 Cr. App. R. (S.) 152.

R. v. Layton (1988), 10 Cr. App. R. (S.) 109.

Text cited:

States of Jersey, Working together against Drugs, at 19; at 22.

Criminal Lawdrugspossessionsentencecustodial sentence not invariable for possession of small quantity of Class A drugmay attract non-custodial sentence if appropriate in circumstancescourt to prescribe punishment and/or rehabilitation to suit individual case

The accused was charged in the Royal Court with possession of illegal drugs.

The accused was found in possession of a very small quantity of a Class A drug, Ecstasy, and was charged, inter alia, with that offence. He was a young man who was mentally disturbed and there was evidence that he had a troubled family background. Following the charge, the accused was apparently genuinely remorseful and sought to avoid any future involvement with drugs. At the request of the Attorney General, the case was referred to the Superior Number to give the court the opportunity to review its sentencing policy in respect of the possession of small quantities of Class A drugs. The accused was then convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, the court reserving its reasons until after its policy had been stated.

The Attorney General submitted, inter alia, that the previously stated policy of the Royal Court had been that in all cases of possession of Class A drugs, no matter how small the quantity, a custodial sentence would be passed unless there were exceptional circumstances; however, it appeared that in a number of cases the Police Court had made binding over orders instead and had ordered attendance at Drug Awareness Programmes. He further submitted that it was the policy of the States of Jersey to use education and treatment-based programmes to combat drug abuse and to attempt to avoid custodial sentences for young offenders where possible, but it was nevertheless important that the court's sentencing policy reflect its view of the seriousness of possessing Class A drugs.

Held, delivering the following ruling:

The policy formerly adopted by the Royal Court for...