Quinault v AG

Quinault considered that his sentence was excessive and sought leave to appeal from the Bailiff. Leave was refused on 12 March 2004. He now renews his application to this Court as is his entitlement under Article 39 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961.

His main complaint is that, having regard to the quantity of drugs for which he was responsible, his sentence is too high both independently considered and in comparison with that suffered by his co-accused. He further suggests that there was an insufficient discount for his early plea of guilty and other mitigation available to him arising out of an unfortunate background and certain mental health problems.

Basing itself on the decisions of this Court in Rimmer (2001) JLR 373 and Valler [2002] JLR 383, the Royal Court concluded that the appropriate starting point in the case of Haywood was 10 years, and 9 years in the case of the Applicant. The difference between them was explained as reflecting the difference in the amount of drugs that each had brought into the Island. We say at once that we can see nothing amiss in the selected starting points for either of these defendants. They fully accord with the guidelines set down in Rimmer as enhanced to take account of the fact that two different drugs were involved. The Royal Court then proceeded to discount the sentences imposed by reason of the early pleas and the other material presented by way of mitigation.

In the Applicant's case the Royal Court had the advantage of Social Enquiry and Drug and Alcohol reports, as do we. Additionally this Court has a psychiatric report from Dr John Sharkey of the Adult Mental Health Services Department in Jersey, which was not available to the Royal Court. We are grateful to Dr Sharkey for producing his report at such short notice. It is not necessary to set out the contents of the three reports in detail. Nor is it necessary to review the Applicant's unenviable criminal record which includes many appearances before the courts for offences of dishonesty but for nothing remotely connected with drugs. The picture which emerges is of an inadequate 39 year old man who was denied the benefit of a stable upbringing, whose marriage has collapsed and who has from time to time suffered from severe bouts of depression. Unhappily that is the kind of history which is all too common in those who have succumbed to the influence of drink and drugs. All of this is of a piece with the statement which the Applicant has placed before the Court and the submissions which he has presented so courteously before the Court.

As stated, the Royal Court set a perfectly proper starting point having regard to the available guidelines. It also appears to us that an entirely proper discount was made on the information available at the time of sentencing. At this level of importation we consider that a sufficient distinction was made between the Applicant and Haywood. We are unpersuaded that the contents of Dr Sharkey's report in any way invalidate the final conclusion at which the Royal Court arrived. He himself states:

Having regard to all the material now available, we consider that it is not open to argument that the sentence imposed was excessive. Accordingly we refuse leave to appeal. We make a direction under Article 35(4) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961 in respect of the full period of six weeks.