A Sandys man left Magistrates' Court on Monday with a stiff fine for drugs offences -- and paid it with money Police seized when he was arrested.

Jelani Butterfield yesterday pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and cannabis possession.

He denied a charge of possession with intent to supply -- a plea which prosecutor Graveney Bannister accepted.

But the move apparently did not sit well with Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner, who spent time pointing out the difference in the summary of what happened during Butterfield's arrest and what he could plead to.

In the end, Mr. Warner threw up his hands and told Butterfield's lawyer Richard Hector his client should not ask for time to pay the $2,000 in fines he had just handed down.

As Mr. Warner was speaking, narcotics officers opened a sealed evidence bag and handed Butterfield a thick wallet in which a large amount of cash could be seen.

Butterfield thumbed the money, smiled and pocketed the wallet.

Mr. Hector questioned the $1,000 fine for cannabis possession, saying in a seemingly angry tone: "I've been in these courts for some time and I've never seen a fine like that for simple possession.'' Mr. Bannister told the court Police went to White Hill Field at 5 p.m. on August 5 and saw a group of men near a large hedge and fence to the field.

They saw a shirtless Butterfield sitting on a plastic chair.

He began to untie his "large'' dog and put an object in his pocket and started to fidget as they approached.

Butterfield was searched under Police powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act and they found what the Government Analyst confirmed was 0.80 grams of cannabis and 4.68 grams of cocaine in his right front pocket.

A Police expert has pegged the drug's street value at $900.

As they began to take him to an awaiting Police car Butterfield said: "Wait a minute, my ace boy needs my video card. Let me give it to him.'' But Police found $2,900 in cash in his wallet when they inspected it.

At first Butterfield claimed his dog found the drugs in a bush and that he took it.

Then he said: "I know you don't believe me. It went like this, you guys got me. It's for my own use and I intended to smoke it.'' Butterfield also claimed to have had the cash to buy a motorcycle.

After hearing that summary, Mr. Warner said: "My concern is this summary doesn't satisfy me of certain things.'' Mr. Warner said the Court of Appeal had stated somebody could be jailed for as little as .04 grams.

"If I were him (Butterfield) I would be packing my things and running from the court. I'd run along. Two thousand dollars in fines and all this was going on?'' Mr. Warner questioned why Butterfield was charged with section 62 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and not section 63.

"One of the real problems is that people should be charged in such a way that the court should not be embarrassed -- and these facts support a potential charge (of possession with intent to supply) on section 63.

"Under these facts, he clearly should be charged with intent to supply,'' Mr.

Warner concluded. "I don't know why not. Obviously Police believe his story, but I don't believe his story. This doesn't make sense.'' Earlier, Mr. Hector had pointed out Butterfield's age and clean record as mitigation before he was sentenced.

"We're looking at (the upcoming Alternatives to Incarceration programme), the Drugs Court and rehabilitation,'' Mr. Hector added. "You've got a first time offender -- a young person who might well be sent on the right path.

"It is not unreasonable for people to stash drugs in certain areas so as not to be found with a lot of drugs. So it might be more palatable and more understandable for my client to have found it .''