Drug dealer given more time to pay back £5,000 so he can keep 'sentimental' jewellery
PUBLISHED: 13:31 30 June 2019 | UPDATED: 13:31 30 June 2019
A cocaine dealer has been given more time to pay back almost £5,000 of his drug money - so that he can raise cash to keep "sentimental" jewellery.
Norwich Crown Court heard Danny Eastwood, 22, of Bernard Crescent, Hunstanton, wants to borrow money to save the jewellery, whose value is part of the £4,803 that police are seeking to claw back.
In March, Eastwood was jailed for 28 months for possession with intent to supply a class A drug.
At that hearing, the court was told that Eastwood's home was raided by police on June 18 2018 and around £2,000 in cash and 29 wraps of cocaine were seized with an estimated value of £580 to £1,160.
The court heard it was a one-man operation, which began as Eastwood was unable to fund his own cocaine habit and he was involved in supply to a small group of friends.
Eastwood was back in court on Friday for a proceeds of crime hearing, designed to try to recover some of the cash he made from his drug dealing operation.
You may also want to watch:
Chris Youell, prosecuting, said that the benefit figure was put at £23,797 and said that the amount of assets which could be cashed in was £4,803.
He said the figure was made up of £2,000 which was seized on his arrest and that was being held by police, as well as some items of jewellery which could be sold to raise cash.
Eastwood's barrister Giles Fleming asked for three months to pay the agreed confiscation amount, saying: "Some of the items of jewellery are of sentimental value. He is hoping to borrow money."
Judge Anthony Bate agreed the confiscation order and granted Eastwood three months in which to pay.
He said that if Eastwood failed to come up with the cash he would have to serve a further three months prison in default.
At his sentencing hearing the court heard that Eastwood dealt drugs on a limited customer base to fund his own habit and dealt to friends.
His barrister William Carter told the court: "He was dealing to a small group of friends, all of them cocaine users and known to him as cocaine users.
"He was involved to the extent his financial position was not good. He couldn't afford the sort of habit that developed and the consequences were inevitable."