Man Gets A Second Chance & Avoids Prison After Being Found With Over 88 Pounds Of Ganja

By Alric Lindsay

A man found with 88 pounds of ganja in a shed at his Windsor Park property has been given a suspended prison sentence, after the Chief Magistrate accepted that his personal circumstances and mitigation justified keeping him out of custody — while making clear it should not be treated as a precedent.

Alwin Owen Buttrum was sentenced over a quantity of ganja recovered during a search at Anthony Drive, Windsor Park, where 88.06 pounds — about 39.94 kilograms — was found in a shed on the property. He gave a no-comment interview, and, after first appearing in court in May, ultimately pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, possession of a utensil, and consumption of ganja.

The Chief Magistrate noted that the maximum penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act is seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour and a $20,000 fine, and that, in the absence of definitive local guidelines, the UK sentencing guidelines had been confirmed as helpful by the higher courts. Both the Crown and the defence agreed the defendant fell to be treated as having played a “significant role”: he had admitted acquiring and storing the drugs and understood the market and supply chain, and had done so for financial gain during a difficult period, hoping to capitalise on the Christmas season. The court remarked on the apparent ease with which he had been able to acquire so substantial a quantity, and the confidence he had that he could sell it.

On harm, the Chief Magistrate placed the offending at least in Category 3 because it involved supply, and observed it fell just below Category 2 — which begins at 40 kilograms — the amount here being 39.94 kilograms. Taking a starting point of 24 months, she gave a full one-third discount for the guilty plea, bringing it to 16 months, and a further two months’ reduction for his personal circumstances.

In mitigation, the court accepted that the defendant had substantial personal mitigation: he was regarded as essentially a good man, a present and supportive father to his children, a business owner who was highly regarded in the community, and was supported by a number of references. He was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending. Financial instability, his own ganja use and his associations were identified as his principal risk factors.

Concluding that the custody threshold had plainly been passed but that immediate imprisonment was not necessary “only because of his particular circumstances and the substantial mitigation,” the Chief Magistrate sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment, with two months for the utensils and 14 days for consumption, all to run concurrently. The sentence was suspended for two years, with a two-year probation order requiring random urine analysis — which must be clean — assessment by the relevant agencies and completion of any programmes, and registration with the labour authorities to explore training and employment. The ganja was ordered forfeited and destroyed.

Warning the defendant that any breach within the next two years would mean immediate custody, the Chief Magistrate said what concerned her, and always had, was “the ease in which you could do this,” and asked probation to keep “a tight rein” on him. He was told of his right to appeal.