Drug case sentence under the spotlight

Friday 13 September 2024

A man given two years in prison, suspended for three years, for drug offences faces another day in court after the Procureur lodged an appeal saying his sentence was too lenient.

Wesley Guilbert was sentenced in June, on nine counts including possession of cannabis resin, morphine, and MDMA and supplying MDMA and cannabis to other people.

Judge Catherine Fooks warned Guilbert when sentencing him that "you could have no complaint were you to leave today to start a prison sentence of 4 years or longer, which would ordinarily rule out any consideration of alternatives to immediate custody".

In sentencing she said his starting point was eight years in prison - before reducing that based on evidence provided to the court by Guibert's defence lawyer.

That included letters from his family and a social enquiry report which suggested he had turned his life around.

Judge Fooks also cited Guilbert's support network and that he was "willing to be free from illegal drugs".

"The Court considers that there is a prospect of rehabilitating you and that doing so in the community represents a better chance of long-term rehabilitation than sending you to prison, Wholly exceptionally (and I cannot emphasise that enough), the Court is going to impose an alternative to immediate custody," said Judge Fooks in June.

She then sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years (with certain shorter terms to run concurrently), along with a probation order for three years, with conditions.

However, His Majesty's Procureur Megan Pullum - represented by Crown Advocate Liam Roffey - lodged an appeal against this sentence.

In his written submission, Advocate Roffey said the starting point of eight years in prison was too low. He cited Guilbert's "extensive criminal record" which included a nine year prison sentence imposed in 2014 for previous drug offences. 

Referring to the 'Richard's guidelines' - local case law in sentencing for drug related convictions - Advocate Roffey also suggested there were "insufficient reasons to depart from the guidelines found in Richards, further suggesting that the Royal Court fell into 'gross error', concluding that: 'If the sentence is not altered, public confidence in the sentencing process, and particularly in the crucial area of drug trafficking offences, will be damaged'."

In considering the appeal against sentence, the Bailiff considered legal principals and other appeal cases including the Richards case.

Sir Richard McMahon granted leave to appeal agreeing that even with the sentence being described as wholly exceptional, "it remains difficult to see how the starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment for the lead Counts results in probation orders rather than any term of immediate custody of some years".

His written judgement did show that he disagrees with the Law Officers on the length of sentence which would be appropriate but he granted leave to appeal writing that "it is preferable to grant the leave sought to enable full argument to be heard without also needing to address any question of leave".

Sir Richard granted legal aid to Guilbert's defence advocate and he urged for the appeal to be "heard as quickly as possible and ideally before the end of this year".