Drug-dealing teenager from Penzance incurs judge's wrath after turning up to hearing 'whacked'

I've posted in Posse Comitatus to compare this local story to the alleged "incarceration society in the US and the overcrowded prisons and policies that keep them that way" - as stated in the forum guidelines set by ATS.

I was reading this local news article, basically, a 19 year old lad has been spared prison by a judge even though he admitted intention to supply cannabis and coc-aine and turned up at court off his head:

Prosecuting, Ed Bailey, told the court how at 12.35am on December 6, 2017, two Penzance police constables were on patrol in the town when they noticed the defendant driving a Volkswagen Golf down Madron Road.
Galloway was stopped at Chyandour Cliff and when the officers went over to the car and opened the door they could immediately smell cannabis.

“A search of the vehicle found 18.9 grams of cannabis with a street value of £190. There was also a grinder in the glove box and he had on him £135 in cash.
“Police then searched Galloway’s Albert Street home and in his bedroom found 23.2 grams of coc aine with a street value of £2,300. They also seized clear plastic bags and digital scales.”

Pausing for thought, Judge Robert Linford addressed Galloway’s mum and step-father in the public gallery. He said: “You must both be hurting because of what you are seeing in front of you. Is he under the influence? He looks whacked.”
Moving to Galloway, Judge Linford said: “Look, you are 19 and no judge wants to send someone of your age to Exeter, which is a drug-swamped environment. “Just look at your mum and step-dad, look how much pain you’re causing. It’d break my heart if I was your dad.”
Judge Linford then received confirmation from Galloway’s step-father that he could start work tomorrow, adding: “You’ve got to keep away from drugs. If over the next four months you’ve worked, done your best to keep your job and kept away from drugs then I will not send you to prison.
“If you offend and throw back into the face of your step-father the opportunity he has given you then I will sentence you to three years.

“I know because I’m not stupid you’re under the influence of drugs so go, get it out of your system, go to work tomorrow and make your mum proud. Go away. Good luck.”

CornwallLive News (Local Rag)

Although this case seems quite unusual with the judge considering a guilty plea for intent to supply, plus the fact that the lad was under the influence in court, and he has a previous conviction for 'intent to supply' but it is difficult to get a custodial sentence in the UK under normal circumstances anyway. Even more so if you are young because most judges don't want to ruin a person's future if there is a chance they can be rehabilitated.

So ATS, I'm just wondering the thoughts of US members.
Would the defendent in this case likely get a second shot in your justice system similar to this?
Do you think the judge is being too lenient, or making a reasonable call?

Personally, I support the judge's decision. He's giving him 3 months to work, get clean, and prove he can behave himself before deciding a final judgement. Drugs are rife in our jails and the judge knows that locking him up is effectively closing the door on rehabilitation and a recipe for a career criminal.
If the lad had only 'personal possession' of cannabis and coc aine then it wouldn't have even gone to court, just confiscation and maybe a caution or an £80 penalty fine, but this was admitted intent to supply which is taken more seriously so court was inevitable.

Sensible? Too lenient? Or an example of reasoned justice which one would not see in a police state?
All thoughts regarding criminal punishment and/or rehabilitation are welcome.

Well done, that man. Gave him a chance at another life. He'll have no leg to stand on if he screws it up and rightly so. Be a real shame to exacerbate a substance problem over 2 grand.

If he were known to be violent with it, I may be singing a different tune, but as it stands, I'd say the judge made a great choice.

originally posted by: SlowNail
Gave him a chance at another life. He'll have no leg to stand on if he screws it up and rightly so.

I agree, if he blows it this time he knows he's got prison ahead of him so no sympathy from me then.
As I said though, our prisons are overcrowded as it is, so judges do their best to avoid custodial sentences where they can.
I think he made the right call trying to spare a young man from ruining his life, it remains to be seen if he takes advantage of this opportunity to change for the better. Hopefully his mother and step-father see a turnaround with him.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Not often I see a judgement and find myself agreeing with it, but yeah, can't fault this one.

a reply to: SprocketUK
It seems a sensible decision if the lad can change his life around in 3/4 months.
I think the parents involvement has made a difference as well, judges are definitely influenced if they can see a chance of a family rehabilitating the young person.
My own son crashed and rolled his car while really drunk a couple of years ago aged 17. He took out an electricity pylon and caused a blackout for thousands of homes. I thought he was screwed when we went to court, but he only got a £200 fine and a 7 month driving ban.

The thing (I think) that helped him was both he, his mother, and myself all attended court dressed in suits and looking remorseful. We were the only ones aside from legal staff actually wearing suits, all other defendents were in hoody's and track trousers.
He even had the genuinely 'weeping mother' next to me in the public gallery as his charges were read out, and the judge could see a strong family wishing to rehabilitate our son.
It was the right call. My son learned from the experience, and in a couple of years his conviction will be 'spent' so he will legally be able to tell an employer he has no convictions (aside from work dealing with vulnerable people which require enhanced checks).

I wonder how many young people could be helped from ruining their lives with the right support of a second chance, and a sensible judge.
From stuff I read on ATS it seems in some US states just a simple 1st offence personal possession conviction can wind up in jail time. That doesn't seem like the way forward to me, certainly not in the UK where drugs are easy to obtain in prison.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I don't know what the kid's legal history is, however the judge is doing a good thing, IMO, IF and only IF this is the lad's first offence. The judge was lenient but with a caveat, I think that's fair.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek
The lad actually had a previous conviction for dealing cannabis so this was a final chance. I still support the judge though. If he turns it around in the next 3/4 months then it will have been the right choice, but if the lad fails to listen then it's 3 years inside and good riddance, pay the price I say.

Title is wrong.

She is 19 , not a teenager. 19 or 99 is an adult.

originally posted by: dude1
Title is wrong.

She is 19 , not a teenager. 19 or 99 is an adult.

The criminal is a he, not a she.
A teenager is anyone who's age ends in 'teen' so nineteen is a teenager. Did you even read your post before clicking reply?
Now, your off-topic comments to one side, what are your thoughts on the judges decision and the actual OP?
I'm not interested in your silly troll like comments about what constitutes a teenager or not lol.