Watford man found with 38 grams of cannabis in his home to go on training course

Watford man found with 38 grams of cannabis in his home to go on training course

Watford man found with 38 grams of cannabis in his home to go on training course

First published in News by

A Watford man who was found with 38 grams of cannabis in his home is to go on an Employment, Education and Training Course.

Wayne Evans, 41, was given a 12 month Community Order by Recorder Tim Clark after he pleaded guilty before his trial was due to start yesterday at St Albans crown court.

Prosecutor George Heimler said the police raided the home Evans shared with Victoria Paterson in Boundary Way, more than two years ago, on August 14, 2012.

Herbal cannabis was found in a kitchen drawer and a bottle of 130 pills, which were found to be Class C drugs, were inside the washing machine.

Evans pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis and Class C drugs with intent to supply.

Andel Singh, defending, said Evans' wife was pregnant with their first child. He has been undergoing investigations for a heart condition. 

Recorder Clark ordered him to attend the Employment, Education, and Training Course for ten days.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:42am Fri 22 Aug 14

CaptainPC says...

Victim?
Victim? CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Free the P says...

CaptainPC wrote:
Victim?
Victim?
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: Victim?[/p][/quote]Victim? Free the P
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Fri 22 Aug 14

LSC says...

The only victims I can see so far are the taxpayer who paid for the police, the trial and his 'training course' and the people he sold his toxic filth to, their families, the man's own wife and his unborn child.
The only victims I can see so far are the taxpayer who paid for the police, the trial and his 'training course' and the people he sold his toxic filth to, their families, the man's own wife and his unborn child. LSC
  • Score: 4

12:30pm Tue 26 Aug 14

garston tony says...

I hope the training does the trick, but if it doesnt then can the book please be thrown at him so he gets the punishment he actual deserves?
I hope the training does the trick, but if it doesnt then can the book please be thrown at him so he gets the punishment he actual deserves? garston tony
  • Score: 1

1:55pm Tue 26 Aug 14

LSC says...

garston tony wrote:
I hope the training does the trick, but if it doesnt then can the book please be thrown at him so he gets the punishment he actual deserves?
I somehow doubt it will. The drugs are obviously too important. Who in their right mind would risk putting a pregnant woman through dawn police raids, rival gang raids, house searches and the possibility of her husband being locked up for a while?
That is one hell of a gamble just to 'get a little high, man'. I'd throw the book at him just for that, let alone the actual offence.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I hope the training does the trick, but if it doesnt then can the book please be thrown at him so he gets the punishment he actual deserves?[/p][/quote]I somehow doubt it will. The drugs are obviously too important. Who in their right mind would risk putting a pregnant woman through dawn police raids, rival gang raids, house searches and the possibility of her husband being locked up for a while? That is one hell of a gamble just to 'get a little high, man'. I'd throw the book at him just for that, let alone the actual offence. LSC
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 26 Aug 14

garston tony says...

LSC, I agree. We are always hearing of 'the law' being lenient on people because of family etc yet its the very people who are pleading special circumstances asking for leniency who are putting those same loved ones in that position. Its hypocricy on the culprits part
LSC, I agree. We are always hearing of 'the law' being lenient on people because of family etc yet its the very people who are pleading special circumstances asking for leniency who are putting those same loved ones in that position. Its hypocricy on the culprits part garston tony
  • Score: 2

6:49am Wed 27 Aug 14

bridgewater40 says...

agree with all of the above people die for this stuff as has been shown just this past week, should be zero tolerance to everything, that need to stop worrying about crime figures and hitting targets with silly motoring offences read the paper any week someone caught by a camera gets a huge fine of about 300 quid canabis and drug case the fine on adverse 80 quid .................. wot the hell
agree with all of the above people die for this stuff as has been shown just this past week, should be zero tolerance to everything, that need to stop worrying about crime figures and hitting targets with silly motoring offences read the paper any week someone caught by a camera gets a huge fine of about 300 quid canabis and drug case the fine on adverse 80 quid .................. wot the hell bridgewater40
  • Score: 0

10:23am Wed 27 Aug 14

garston tony says...

Bridgewater, the road laws are there to keep roads as safe as possible for everyone that uses them so i disagree that targeting motorists who break the law is wrong.

Althought I do agree with you they shoulnt be set a target of catching x amount every month etc. and I do agree with zero tolerance. The difference that policy makes in places that have tried is is amazing, New York being a leading example where crime rates dropped after zero tolerance was brought in.

But if you get a harsher punishment for a seemingly 'lesser' crime that to me just means the perceived more lenient punishement for the 'bigger' crime is too low
Bridgewater, the road laws are there to keep roads as safe as possible for everyone that uses them so i disagree that targeting motorists who break the law is wrong. Althought I do agree with you they shoulnt be set a target of catching x amount every month etc. and I do agree with zero tolerance. The difference that policy makes in places that have tried is is amazing, New York being a leading example where crime rates dropped after zero tolerance was brought in. But if you get a harsher punishment for a seemingly 'lesser' crime that to me just means the perceived more lenient punishement for the 'bigger' crime is too low garston tony
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree