Rickmansworth drug dealer given suspended sentence (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Jamie Mason from Rickmansworth given suspended sentence for selling Class A drugs
1:00pm Thursday 14th March 2013 in News By Court Reporter
Rickmansworth drug dealer given suspended sentence
A man who began dealing small amounts of drugs to his friends, found business expanding as friends of friends began asking him for drugs.
It then led to Jamie Mason's Rickmansworth home being searched, where cocaine and ecstasy were discovered in his bedroom and £730 in cash.
At St Albans Crown Court Mason, 23, of Edinburgh Avenue, pleaded guilty to two charges of possessing a small amount of cocaine and ecstasy with intent to supply.
Passing sentence on Mason yesterday (March 13), Judge Steven Gullick told him that supplying friends with drugs was often referred to as "social supply".
But he said: "It's actually pedalling misery and you know it."
The court heard Mason had begun supplying drugs to his friends but, as more and more people began asking him for drugs it "spiralled" out of control.
Judge Gullick told Mason: "If you decide to go into business selling Class A drugs, you are going to get yourself locked up. Don't do it, you are perfectly capable of earning an honest living."
The judge sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment but suspended it for two years and placed him on supervision for the same period.
He was also made the subject of a Drug Rehabilitation Order and ordered to pay £325 costs.
Comments(34)
garston tony
says...
2:25pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Wow
barnet123
says...
2:35pm Thu 14 Mar 13
angryangryangry
says...
3:11pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Andrew Turpie
says...
3:50pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Razor Sharp
says...
7:24pm Thu 14 Mar 13
mg4wfc
says...
11:49pm Thu 14 Mar 13
garston tony
says...
7:54am Fri 15 Mar 13
Razor Sharp wrote:What cost to the tax payer of dealing with the consequences of drug taking? How much does the NHS spend on dealing with mental and physical effects of this habit, how much does it cost the police to deal with crimes committed by those trying to get the money for the next fix, what cost to the social benefits of supporting people who cant work because of their drug taking habit? What cost to individuals who have to deal with anti social behaviour related to drug taking? What cost to friends and families of having to see someone they love snort/inject/ingest their life away?
Small time, 'social supply' - right judicial outcome; or would people prefer tax payer's money, in the region of £800 - £1,000 a week, to house him in prison?
I think 800-1000 a week to keep someone who perpetuates this misery off the streets is money well spent. Sorry mg4wfc, you're deluded and the one without a scooby
elvis78
says...
8:33am Fri 15 Mar 13
HertsPeter
says...
10:25am Fri 15 Mar 13
Well he's got his chance, let's hope for everyone's sake he um, keeps his nose clean
Andrew Turpie
says...
12:05pm Fri 15 Mar 13
HertsPeter wrote:Alcohol destroys just as many if not more. Millions have gone through life with a dabble in their teenage experimental years (think woodstock, acid house and raves) and have left it well alone after and gone on to be quite successful in careers etc.
Cocaine addiction destroys all it touches. mg4, razor, if you had family or friends affected by ringpieces like this guy perhaps you'd want him off the streets too.
Well he's got his chance, let's hope for everyone's sake he um, keeps his nose clean
I am neither on the pro/anti side here, but looking at this case, if we incarcarated everyone for this, financially we would not have a pot to p1ss in surely?
LSC
says...
12:22pm Fri 15 Mar 13
Andrew Turpie wrote:I doubt so many have dabbled in dealing though, which is the case here.
HertsPeter wrote:Alcohol destroys just as many if not more. Millions have gone through life with a dabble in their teenage experimental years (think woodstock, acid house and raves) and have left it well alone after and gone on to be quite successful in careers etc.
Cocaine addiction destroys all it touches. mg4, razor, if you had family or friends affected by ringpieces like this guy perhaps you'd want him off the streets too.
Well he's got his chance, let's hope for everyone's sake he um, keeps his nose clean
I am neither on the pro/anti side here, but looking at this case, if we incarcarated everyone for this, financially we would not have a pot to p1ss in surely?
I notice also he was fined less money for costs than he actually had on him when he was caught, which makes a bit of a mockery of it all.
LSC
says...
12:28pm Fri 15 Mar 13
Who says crime doesn't pay?
Andrew Turpie
says...
1:08pm Fri 15 Mar 13
LSC wrote:LSC you would be surprised, in the rave scene there was a saying "top one, nice one, get sorted" which was technically code for getting your hands on some tablets or powder. Large groups would travel the country and the majority would have at some point gone to a dealer looking to purchase for the whole group - "that's everybody sorted then", bulk buy was probably cheaper.
Andrew Turpie wrote:I doubt so many have dabbled in dealing though, which is the case here.
HertsPeter wrote:Alcohol destroys just as many if not more. Millions have gone through life with a dabble in their teenage experimental years (think woodstock, acid house and raves) and have left it well alone after and gone on to be quite successful in careers etc.
Cocaine addiction destroys all it touches. mg4, razor, if you had family or friends affected by ringpieces like this guy perhaps you'd want him off the streets too.
Well he's got his chance, let's hope for everyone's sake he um, keeps his nose clean
I am neither on the pro/anti side here, but looking at this case, if we incarcarated everyone for this, financially we would not have a pot to p1ss in surely?
I notice also he was fined less money for costs than he actually had on him when he was caught, which makes a bit of a mockery of it all.
Accept that drugs are illegal, but we need to look at why so many people are ignoring the law, "sorting" their mates out and the consumption of as well.
I don't believe the threat of the law is enough to make people stop dabbling and getting stuff for their mates. Lets face it, there are laws for murder, speeding, theft etc and people still perform these illegal acts.
I believe we need to look at more deep social rooted issues as to why people go down this route, not only with this but with alcohol as well.
We need to find out the real reason behind the dependancy of any damaging substance legal or not.
Razor Sharp
says...
10:26am Sat 16 Mar 13
garston tony wrote:You're confusing social supply with addiction.
Razor Sharp wrote:What cost to the tax payer of dealing with the consequences of drug taking? How much does the NHS spend on dealing with mental and physical effects of this habit, how much does it cost the police to deal with crimes committed by those trying to get the money for the next fix, what cost to the social benefits of supporting people who cant work because of their drug taking habit? What cost to individuals who have to deal with anti social behaviour related to drug taking? What cost to friends and families of having to see someone they love snort/inject/ingest their life away?
Small time, 'social supply' - right judicial outcome; or would people prefer tax payer's money, in the region of £800 - £1,000 a week, to house him in prison?
I think 800-1000 a week to keep someone who perpetuates this misery off the streets is money well spent. Sorry mg4wfc, you're deluded and the one without a scooby
Not everyone using small quantities of Class A drugs will suddenly become an addict and an unnecessary burden to society and be subject to ASBOs. I know people who have used Class A drugs on a social basis and who do not have criminal records and occupy good positions in society. I also know people who used Class A drugs, went out of control and now have mental health issues.
I do not condone the use of any drugs, but proportionality is part of our criminal justice system. In this case, the outcome appears to be proportionate to the criminal transgression.
Such social supply is a drop in the ocean compared to the volumes being supplied on the streets.
Get a perspective on things.
Razor Sharp
says...
10:32am Sat 16 Mar 13
LSC
says...
2:14pm Sat 16 Mar 13
I strongly disagree. As I said above, if this person behaves (or doesn't get caught) for the next 2 years, then the only result of this crime is they made a shed-load of money. Possibly enough to live comfortably for the next 2 years while he keeps his head down.
What message does that send out?
LSC
says...
2:18pm Sat 16 Mar 13
highhigh
says...
11:26pm Sat 16 Mar 13
Razor Sharp
says...
11:32am Sun 17 Mar 13
As for shed-load of money, I doubt that very much, given the amount of cash recovered. The street value of the drugs seized was not disclosed. It's unlikely that, given his position in the supply chain, that he would be making large profit margins.
The threat of custody remains for two years. Don't forget that Class A drugs can be supplied in prison as well.
Had he been dealing on the streets and made an business enterprise out of it, custody would be more justified.
In this instance, the outcome was proportionate.
Razor Sharp
says...
12:20pm Sun 17 Mar 13
k/legal/s_to_u/sente
ncing_manual/supply_
class_a_drugs/
Last week, the Sentencing Council issued new definitive guidelines on drug offences that signify a more pragmatic and reasonable approach towards drug sentencing.
There are three main areas of reform: supply, drugs mules and the medicinal use of drugs.
"Supplying drugs is broken down into four broad categories, with sentencing being determined primarily by whether the offender played a leading, significant or lesser role. Whilst those who sell drugs on the street for profit or are in any other way involved in the organising or buying and selling of drugs on a commercial scale can still expect a hefty prison sentence, those in the lowest category – classified by up to 100g of cannabis, 5g of heroin or cocaine and 20 ecstasy tablets – may now be spared prison. Such amounts, often conversant with social supply, will now attract a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment with the parameters ranging from an 18 month community order up to custody."
"Essentially, the new guidelines formalise much of what already exists in the form of case law. It certainly cannot be said that the UK is soft on drugs, with its sentences for supplying illegal drugs longer than most other countries, but crucially the new guidance provide the courts with flexibility to deal with each case on its own merits where appropriate."
http://www.halsburys
lawexchange.co.uk/gu
idelines-for-drugs-o
ffences-an-overview/
The only argument you have left LSC is as to whether it remained social supply. Without reading the case judgment, it is difficult to ascertain the court's treatment of this case on that issue.
Razor Sharp
says...
12:44pm Sun 17 Mar 13
Category 4
• heroin, cocaine – 5g;
• ecstasy – 20 tablets;
• LSD – 170 squares;
• amphetamine – 20g;
• cannabis – 100g;
• ketamine – 5g;
Starting point
18 months’ custody
Category range
High level community order – 3 years’ custody
It appears that 'social supply' here is more to do with the quantity of Class A drugs possessed (obviously there are are other factors included in the drug sentencing guidelines). Selling to friends of friends, if one assumes the rationale of quantity possessed, is probably still within the scope of 'social supply'. If you can find a different interpretation, then please post here and reference accordingly.
Razor Sharp
says...
12:46pm Sun 17 Mar 13
ncil.judiciary.gov.u
k/docs/Drug_Offences
_Definitive_Guidelin
e_final_(web).pdf
garston tony
says...
9:16am Mon 18 Mar 13
It was interesting to read the other day a report which stated that the number of people taking illegal substances is actually decreasing, so maybe the current 'war on drugs' isnt failing as many claim? But yes if the reason why people turn to drugs and other harmful substances legal or not could be nullified that would make a huge difference to our society.
garston tony
says...
9:24am Mon 18 Mar 13
Even if just dealing to friends though you've still selling a product which has the very real possibility, no likelyhood of screwing you up. That affects that persons family and friends as well as any one else they come into contact with and us the tax payer in general who does have to pick up the tab if they turn to crime or their health declines.
And if you want to look the other way on the supply chain what about all the misery, pain, chaos and death dealt out to thousands of people affected by the growing, production, distribution and control of the drug trade nearer to the source? Even if you've only take a drug once you've contributed to murder and oppression somewhere in the world.
I don’t watch Shameless, but the amount of times I've been told its based on true life in some parts of the country. So maybe you shouldn’t view it as entertainment but as an example of how low life can get (that’s a blind statement in truth as I only have the vaguest idea what the program is about).
Razor Sharp
says...
1:12pm Mon 18 Mar 13
Your submission garston tony, like LSC's is based on a moral and ethical premise rather than legal reality, which I have already referenced in my earlier postings. If you disagree with the outcome in this case, you should look at reforming the law and legal definition of 'social supply' than seeking to 'shoot the messenger'.
In this case, the courts stepped in at the right time and did what they could under the drug offences sentencing guidelines. They couldn't exceed those guidelines for fear of being overturned on appeal, probably at considerable expense to the legal aid budget and hence the tax payer.
I have stated 'what is' rather than 'what ought to be', whereas your and LSC's argument is focused on the latter and with no clear understanding of the legal definition of 'social supply' in the context of the drug offences sentencing guidelines.
I do not have the time to research the precise legal definition of social supply or how it is interpreted by the courts, but the above guidelines and related factors (aggravating and mitigating) seem to inform the definition.
So, it seems that we are talking at cross purposes. Do I condone social supply of drugs? - No. Does the law condone it? - to an extent. Do I believe the judgment here is legally correct? - Yes. Do I morally agree with the outcome? - not enough information to arrive at a conclusion. Do I agree with drug use? - Not personally. Should others take drugs? - their choice, so long as they do not harm others in the process or become a burden on the tax payer.
I trust this clarifies my position and you have no argument left with my postings.
Mohandas
says...
1:36pm Mon 18 Mar 13
What happened to Sanity, Mkhan, Blue sky 1etc with their one liners?
LSC
says...
3:03pm Mon 18 Mar 13
It is true that we don't know all the facts; was the money recovered from one hour's dealing or all he could manage in a month? Naturally the defence would hint at the latter.
The fact remains he sold to strangers and while I understand your legal definitions, in my opinion the sentencing guidelines are wrong.
Depending whereabouts he was in the supply chain and therefore the purity of his supply, there is a very great deal of money to be made and well worth two years of behaving (or not getting caught).
The message this sends out to me is that being a drug dealer can usually be very good business, even if you are caught, which many aren't.
Razor Sharp
says...
5:16pm Mon 18 Mar 13
It's your prerogative to disagree with the current law.
I believe it to set the right balance, all other factors considered.
LSC
says...
11:21pm Mon 18 Mar 13
I do not agree it is the right balance because in the cold light of day, it is nothing.
garston tony
says...
11:14am Tue 19 Mar 13
LSC wrote:I have to agree. Plus why the need for balance when dealing with crimes and criminals? Its this quest for balance that has led to a situation where criminal activity does actually pay as in many cases if caught you'll just get a slap on the wrist.
I draw your attention to a later story on this site where a man, under a suspended sentence, re-offended. He had nothing to fear as the suspended sentence was not enforced and he is still free. I do not agree it is the right balance because in the cold light of day, it is nothing.
The see saw is down in favour of the criminals when it should be totally the other way and in favour of the law abiding citizen.
I believe that crimes should be punished both as a punishement for the criminal involved but to send out the message to everyone else that if you turn to crime and are caught it wont be a walk in the park
Razor Sharp
says...
5:10pm Tue 19 Mar 13
Andrew Turpie
says...
5:47pm Wed 20 Mar 13
garston tony wrote:Could it be the illegality of drugs which cause all the problems. We cannot say for certain that the masses actually haven't experimented with drugs, purely down to being scared of the law, as we know that laws are being blatantly broken everyday by all sorts?
Andrew, two wrongs don’t make a right. Yes alcohol and tobacco are harmful but that doesn’t mean that because they are legal illegal drugs should be made legal.
It was interesting to read the other day a report which stated that the number of people taking illegal substances is actually decreasing, so maybe the current 'war on drugs' isnt failing as many claim? But yes if the reason why people turn to drugs and other harmful substances legal or not could be nullified that would make a huge difference to our society.
Any substance which is abused can cause addiction, health issues and fatalities, but should we be crediting humans with a bit more common sense and that they actually avoid taking drugs because they actually know of the effects,dangers and risks involved rather than just the government says no.
By continuing down this road, we are criminalising some decent people who could make a decent contribution to society, leaving them on the scrap head and worse case scenario a life on benefits courtesy of you and me.
I'm a grand believer of ensuring other crimes committed under the influence of substances e.g assault, neglect of children, causing accidents or death by driving under the influence should be met with serious sentences.
Just investigating other angles here...
garston tony
says...
1:23pm Thu 21 Mar 13
But then of course there is a law against murder, which is for everyones protection. Just as there is a law about illegal drugs,again for everyones protection.
If people dont take drugs because it is illegal then great as far as im concerned. The law has acted in a manner which has saved people from misery, pain and potential death
Home Truths says...
2:14pm Thu 14 Mar 13