go

Police find cannabis and cash...in man's underpants

Defendant had been smoking drug 'since aged 10'

John Garvey

Reporter:

John Garvey

Contact:

Mobile

Drugs 2

POLICE who searched a Newbury man found drugs plus £800 in cash stuffed down his underpants.

In the dock at Reading Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, January 26, was 18-year-old Harry Robert Gregg of Digby Road.

The court heard he has been smoking cannabis since he was just 10 years old.

Sarah McKay, prosecuting, said Mr Gregg was initially arrested for a suspected offence of assault but that when he was searched, officers found cash plus the drugs, in two ‘deal’ bags, in his underwear.

She added: “He was initially arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to supply, but possession is all the Crown could prove. He said the cash was his savings and it has been returned to him.

“He admitted the offence fully in interview.”

Mr Gregg admitted possessing the Class B controlled drug in Brummell Road, Speen, on September 25 last year.

He also has previous convictions, magistrates were told.

Honorata Choloniewska, defending, said her client had previously been homeless and was convicted, as a youth, for a number of serious offences.

She added: “He has been smoking cannabis since he was 10 years old.

“He got involved with some bad people and got into trouble.

“But this is the first time he has appeared in an adult court.

“He has not committed any other offence since the youth rehabilitation order was imposed last October.

“He has significantly reduced his cannabis use and tries to maintain abstinence.”

Presiding magistrate Geoffrey Beard told Mr Gregg: “You’re in the big boys’ court now. And the big boys’ court can eventually lead to prison – so sort your life out.”

Mr Gregg was made subject to an 18-month conditional discharge.

In addition he was ordered to pay £85 costs plus a statutory victim services surcharge of £25.

Leave your comment

Share your opinions on Newbury Weekly News

Characters left: 1000

Article comments

  • Adama

    06/02/2017 - 11:11

    Needlessly criminalising a young lad for a having a couple of bags of weed, and splashing it across the Newbury website as if it were in any way serious?. Demonstrates how completely backward our drug policy is. Judge's comments were also very ostentatious and crass. Sad.

    Reply

    • Tommy

      06/02/2017 - 19:07

      Perhaps your liberal views on the subject would change if you ever became a parent of a young person who continually stole money, household items etc. from them to fund the habit, even stooping as low as breaking open their own Baby Sisters Money Box !! Sad indeed, you have no idea !!

      Reply

      • Shamus2

        06/02/2017 - 20:08

        Cannabis is scientifically proven to be less addictive than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. Millions use it without the need to steal. Them that claim to be addicted are usually the ones who are stood in the dock making excuses for their crimes, trying to get a lesser sentence by blaming something else.

        Reply

        • Tommy

          07/02/2017 - 10:10

          Same old spiel, you carry on scrambling your brain if you can't cope with life without it. Soon you will be joining the queue at Bart St. Boots for your next Methadone fix along with the others who started by just having a harmless smoke !!!

          Reply

    • NWN_reader

      06/02/2017 - 12:12

      I disagree. There was intent to supply. If he'd made £800 cash out of it he had sold a hell of a lot. Needlessly criminalising?! As it says, he "was convicted, as a youth, for a number of serious offences".

      Reply

      • Shamus2

        06/02/2017 - 19:07

        There was no evidence he was supplying. It does not matter how suspicious the circumstances may appear, in law you are innocent until proven guilty.

        Reply

      • Adama

        06/02/2017 - 13:01

        'If' being the operative word in your comment - the defendant was quite correctly only charged with possession given the quantity of cannabis and money found is completely insufficient to allege any intent to supply. Also, my comment was not referencing his previous convictions, rather the fact that they are further criminalising an individual for an action which causes no harm to anyone but himself. Policy is in this area is out-dated and draconian.

        Reply

      • grumpy

        06/02/2017 - 13:01

        He obviously know's how to pull the wool over the magistrates eyes !! £800 savings in his underpants. I don't think so. That's the money he made selling the drugs that day. Doh - and he got away with it :-(

        Reply

  • Shamus2

    06/02/2017 - 09:09

    And the victims of this crime are....? Was it really worth the expense to the taxpayer of taking this to court?

    Reply

    • DonCossack

      06/02/2017 - 22:10

      Well done Shamus, showing an obvious bias here to justify your dirty habit "publicly". You massive drongo

      Reply

    • NWN_reader

      06/02/2017 - 12:12

      I'd say the person who he was initially arrested for assaulting was a victim!

      Reply

      • Shamus2

        06/02/2017 - 19:07

        He was suspected of assault but not charged. He was only charged with cannabis posession.

        Reply

News

Box clever and give big softie Rocky a champion home
News

Box clever and give big softie Rocky a champion home

Champion boxer Rocky is appealing for a knock-out home

 
Hermitage development is on hold as plan is rejected
News

Hermitage development is on hold as plan is rejected

Application for 37-home scheme in village branded 'disappointing' by planners

 
News

'Amazing' support for charity Christmas fair

 
News

Newbury explosions 'could have been catastrophic'

3comments

 
News

Serial shoplifter dodges prison yet again

12comments