"Mercy” ruling sees jailed stepfather released

Monday 28 October 2019

A bereaved man, whose jailing for dealing cannabis separated him from his grieving stepchildren after the unexpected death of their mother, has been released from prison following an "exceptional" appeal.

54-year-old Shaun Price was caught with 312grams of cannabis resin in April this year and had already begun his eight-month prison sentence before bringing an appeal to Jersey’s highest Court for a “mercy” ruling so that he can continue to care for his deceased partner’s children.

The Court ultimately decided that the “exceptional circumstances” of Price’s case warranted overturning the sentence imposed by the Relief Magistrate earlier this year and replacing it with a probation and community service order.

Pictured: The step-father will be released from prison to serve a non-custodial sentence.

The appeal relates to an incident where Police carried out a search warrant at Price’s home address on the morning of 4 April, which uncovered three bars of cannabis together with some of the drug wrapped in silver foil and a further small amount.  

There were also a number of scales, cutters and a chopping board on which traces of the cannabis were found. 

Price was charged with a single count of possession with intent to supply, but told his Probation Officer that he was just “minding” the cannabis for someone else. He argued that he wasn’t involved in selling the drugs, but only cut and wrapped them.

The 54-year-old was sentenced to eight months in prison by Relief Magistrate David Le Cornu, who dismissed his account of just being a ‘minder’ of the drugs.

Representing Price in his appeal, Advocate Michael Haines told the Court yesterday that his client had suffered a series of close family bereavements in the years leading up to the offence, only to lose his partner of ten years unexpectedly the month after it.

Pictured: The original sentence was imposed by the Magistrate's Court and the appeal was heard in the Royal Court.

She left behind two children – a teenage daughter and a son in his 20s – who considered Price to be in the “de facto role of father” in that he gave them “assistance and physical, financial and emotional support".

Due to Price being sent to jail, the son has had to care for his younger sibling financially and at one point they were threatened with having to leave the family home due to falling behind on rent.

Advocate Haines also explained that after Price began the jail sentence imposed by the Magistrate’s Court, his absence had worsened the teen’s distress following her mother’s “tragic” death.

In a letter written by the girl, she said that the death of her mother left a “big void” and that Price “has filled that void”. She also said that “when [Price] was sent to prison, she cried for days".

Emphasising the “upset and distress” caused to this family unit due to bereavement and the added strain of being without their “father figure”, the defence lawyer urged that there was sufficient grounds for the Court to overturn the sentence and impose a non-custodial sentence. 

“It is very difficult to think of a more exceptional circumstance,” he stated.

Pictured: The grieving family will be reunited as a result of the ruling.

Advocate Haines also argued that the sentence imposed by Relief Magistrate David Le Cornu was “manifestly excessive” and that the Court should not have dismissed his client’s version of events when passing sentence. 

Advocate Chris Baglin, appearing for the prosecution, insisted that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate’s Court should stand. 

He told the Court that the Relief Magistrate “found reasonably, the prosecution say, they weren’t so exceptional that he would depart from imposing a prison sentence on the defendant".

Royal Court Commissioner Sir Michael Birt was presiding, and the case was heard by Jurats Ramsden and Dulake. 

They decided that, although they didn’t agree that the sentence was “manifestly excessive” or that sentencing on Price’s version of events would have made a significant difference to sentencing, the Relief Magistrate should have either held a hearing to decide which factual basis was the correct one, or sentenced on the defendant’s account of what happened. 

In terms of the family matters, the Court agreed with defence counsel that “there were exceptional circumstances in this case” and that it was “wrong in principle to impose an immediate” custodial sentence.

The Court therefore withdrew the eight-month jail sentence and imposed a six-month probation order coupled with 110 hours of community service.

Before dismissing Price, the Commissioner warned him that if he does not comply with either order, he could be brought back to Court and may face a custodial sentence.