Suspended sentence for drug dealer

Suspended sentence for drug dealer

Suspended sentence for drug dealer

First published in Crime

POLICE discovered a bag of drugs under a door at a flat in Southampton’s inner city when they went to see a man in relation to another matter.

The bag was found to contain two now outlawed legal highs worth about £680.

Prosecutor Edward Phillips said Donovan Parker-Gordon was arrested and when his mobile phone was examined, it was discovered to contain messages about the onward supply of cannabis.

Parker-Gordon, 21, of Wilton Road, Southampton, admitted being concerned in the supply of cannabis and being in possession of Legal X and BZP.

Judge Peter Ralls QC followed the probation report’s recommendation and gave him a 12 months suspended sentence with 12 months supervision incorporating an order to attend a drugs treatment programme.

Parker-Gordon was said to have 12 previous convictions for 17 offences that included drugs possession and robbery.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:48am Wed 23 Apr 14

wwozzer says...

17 serious previous convictions and still not jailed? What a complete joke. Anyone repeatedly convicted more than three times for serious offences should get a 10 year minimum sentance.
17 serious previous convictions and still not jailed? What a complete joke. Anyone repeatedly convicted more than three times for serious offences should get a 10 year minimum sentance. wwozzer
  • Score: 5

9:09am Wed 23 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet?

Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?!
Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet? Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?! camerajuan
  • Score: 10

9:17am Wed 23 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

wwozzer wrote:
17 serious previous convictions and still not jailed? What a complete joke. Anyone repeatedly convicted more than three times for serious offences should get a 10 year minimum sentance.
While I agree with your last sentence, it should be pointed out that the story does not say he has 17 serious previous convictions. It says he has 17 previous convictions, and mentions one offence that was probably serious (robbery).
[quote][p][bold]wwozzer[/bold] wrote: 17 serious previous convictions and still not jailed? What a complete joke. Anyone repeatedly convicted more than three times for serious offences should get a 10 year minimum sentance.[/p][/quote]While I agree with your last sentence, it should be pointed out that the story does not say he has 17 serious previous convictions. It says he has 17 previous convictions, and mentions one offence that was probably serious (robbery). Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 0

9:19am Wed 23 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

camerajuan wrote:
Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet?

Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?!
Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet? Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?![/p][/quote]Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 7

12:19pm Wed 23 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet?

Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?!
Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.
I've always been of the thought that repeat offenders get punished though. It's not a deterrent if someone keeps getting off. This sets precedent for others to do the same and get away with suspended sentences also.

Also, won't it make things a lot more dangerous for wardens if only violent offenders are sent to prison? They're already paid too little as it is.

Seriously flawed system.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet? Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?![/p][/quote]Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.[/p][/quote]I've always been of the thought that repeat offenders get punished though. It's not a deterrent if someone keeps getting off. This sets precedent for others to do the same and get away with suspended sentences also. Also, won't it make things a lot more dangerous for wardens if only violent offenders are sent to prison? They're already paid too little as it is. Seriously flawed system. camerajuan
  • Score: 7

5:34pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet?

Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?!
Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.
I've always been of the thought that repeat offenders get punished though. It's not a deterrent if someone keeps getting off. This sets precedent for others to do the same and get away with suspended sentences also.

Also, won't it make things a lot more dangerous for wardens if only violent offenders are sent to prison? They're already paid too little as it is.

Seriously flawed system.
Completely agree. But the budget simply isn't there.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet? Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?![/p][/quote]Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.[/p][/quote]I've always been of the thought that repeat offenders get punished though. It's not a deterrent if someone keeps getting off. This sets precedent for others to do the same and get away with suspended sentences also. Also, won't it make things a lot more dangerous for wardens if only violent offenders are sent to prison? They're already paid too little as it is. Seriously flawed system.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. But the budget simply isn't there. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 2

6:15pm Wed 23 Apr 14

bullsbags says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet?

Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?!
Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.
I've always been of the thought that repeat offenders get punished though. It's not a deterrent if someone keeps getting off. This sets precedent for others to do the same and get away with suspended sentences also.

Also, won't it make things a lot more dangerous for wardens if only violent offenders are sent to prison? They're already paid too little as it is.

Seriously flawed system.
Completely agree. But the budget simply isn't there.
Paid too little
Please enlighten me,how much does a prison officer earn?
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet? Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?![/p][/quote]Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.[/p][/quote]I've always been of the thought that repeat offenders get punished though. It's not a deterrent if someone keeps getting off. This sets precedent for others to do the same and get away with suspended sentences also. Also, won't it make things a lot more dangerous for wardens if only violent offenders are sent to prison? They're already paid too little as it is. Seriously flawed system.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. But the budget simply isn't there.[/p][/quote]Paid too little Please enlighten me,how much does a prison officer earn? bullsbags
  • Score: 0

8:59am Thu 24 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

bullsbags wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet?

Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?!
Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.
I've always been of the thought that repeat offenders get punished though. It's not a deterrent if someone keeps getting off. This sets precedent for others to do the same and get away with suspended sentences also.

Also, won't it make things a lot more dangerous for wardens if only violent offenders are sent to prison? They're already paid too little as it is.

Seriously flawed system.
Completely agree. But the budget simply isn't there.
Paid too little
Please enlighten me,how much does a prison officer earn?
A little under £19k I believe is the starting salary for a 37 hour week with the possibility of £21k if you work a 41 hour week for the year.

The same starting salary as Admin Assistants get if they work for Red Funnel.

Any other questions?
[quote][p][bold]bullsbags[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of our justice system failing. 12 convictions for 17 offences and no custodial sentence yet? Seriously, why would anyone be put off offending if they can just stay out of prison and keep doing it?!?![/p][/quote]Too much public money's been squandered elsewhere, so there's an incentive not to send people down if it can be avoided. It seems to be that unless you're a demonstrably violent offender - which this guy doesn't seem to be - you're quite likely to avoid custodial sentence. A joke, but it's an economic decision I suspect.[/p][/quote]I've always been of the thought that repeat offenders get punished though. It's not a deterrent if someone keeps getting off. This sets precedent for others to do the same and get away with suspended sentences also. Also, won't it make things a lot more dangerous for wardens if only violent offenders are sent to prison? They're already paid too little as it is. Seriously flawed system.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. But the budget simply isn't there.[/p][/quote]Paid too little Please enlighten me,how much does a prison officer earn?[/p][/quote]A little under £19k I believe is the starting salary for a 37 hour week with the possibility of £21k if you work a 41 hour week for the year. The same starting salary as Admin Assistants get if they work for Red Funnel. Any other questions? camerajuan
  • Score: 1

7:38am Fri 25 Apr 14

cornishkev says...

I have to say that on this occasion the suspended sentence is appropriate for this young man, however it should be off a motorway bridge in rush hour by his privates.
I have to say that on this occasion the suspended sentence is appropriate for this young man, however it should be off a motorway bridge in rush hour by his privates. cornishkev
  • 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