Law Officers win appeal in court first

Saturday 07 December 2024

A man has been jailed for four years after the Law Officers successfully appealed against his original non-custodial sentence for drug offences, arguing that it was too low and he should have gone to prison.

Wesley Guilbert was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for three years, earlier this year for nine counts including possession of cannabis resin, morphine, and MDMA and supplying MDMA and cannabis to other people.

The 44-year-old was also sentenced to shorter terms to run concurrently, along with a probation order for three years, with conditions.

In sentencing him in June, Judge Catherine Fooks warned Guilbert 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". However she had decided to reduce his sentence to a non-custodial one based on evidence provided to the court by Guibert's defence lawyer, Samuel Steel.

However, the Procureur lodged an appeal against his sentence saying it was too lenient.

Representing the Law Officers of the Crown, Advocate Liam Roffey this week argued that the starting point for the sentencing considerations was too low, meaning that the overall sentence passed was also lower than it should have been.

Advocate Roffey argued that Guilbert, who has a lengthy criminal record including convictions for serious drug offences, should have been given a greater sentence than the one imposed and suspended. It was also argued that giving Guilbert a one-third discount on his sentence for his guilty plea was too generous.

Advocate Roffey urged the court to resentence Guilbert, following the Richards guidelines more closely. 

On behalf of Guilbert, Advocate Steel argued that his original sentence was not unreasonable and that he had not offended for nearly a decade prior to these offences. 

It was also argued that Guilbert had complied with the investigation, entering guilty pleas and providing his mobile phone PIN, and that he had been given a probation order which is "onerous" with "severe penalties" if he had not complied.

Advocate Steel also cited letters written by family members sharing details of Guilbert's traumatic childhood with the court, with evidence that he had been turning his life around prior to these offences. 

The resentencing was heard by Clare Montgomery KC; President, Sir Timothy Le Cocq; Bailiff of Jersey, and Michael Furness KC; JA.

Together they agreed that the original sentence had been too lenient and that Guilbert had limited mitigation in his favour.

However they also said that the original starting point of the sentence was "generous" but "not impeachable", and that Guilbert should be awarded a one-third discount for his guilty plea.

It was acknowledged that the custodial sentence now given "might, in other circumstances, be considered low" but having considered all of the evidence before them, the court of appeal gave Guilbert a four-year prison term starting immediately. 

This was the third time the Law Officers have appealed a sentence given by Guernsey's Royal Court, and the first time they have been successful.

READ MORE...

Drug case sentence under the spotlight

FOCUS: Why are drug offences sentenced the way they are?