Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/10

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21^st January, 2000

 

Before: F.C. Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and

Jurats Le Brocq and Georgelin.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Lara Maria Giovanna Galante

 

 

 

1 count of:   Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978

                    Count 1:  amphetamine sulphate (withdrawn: 10^th December, 1999).

 

2 counts of:  Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978

                    Count 2:  amphetamine sulphate.

                    Count 3:  MDMA ( ecstasy)

 

 

Age:   28.

 

 

Plea:  Guilty.

 

 

Details of Offence:

 

Subsequent to a drugs warrant a search was carried out at the defendant's home address, in the presence of her boyfriend and two young children.  Upon a search, one ecstasy tablet was found in the pocket of a cardigan hanging in her wardrobe (count 3) and in her letter box there were 18 wraps of amphetamine sulphate. found to be below average purity and 1 and 2% amphetamine sulphate by weight.  Average purity 2 to 7%.  total weight 10.28 grams, street value £180.  The single ecstasy tablet street value £15.  The defendant said that she had bought 20 wraps for her personal use and had used some at the weekend.  Said she had paid about half normal street price per wrap.  When asked why they should be sold cheaply she said "I don't know.  To get rid of them.  They were crap anyway that explains it".  Count 1 on the indictment possession with intent to supply was withdrawn on 10^th December, 1999 after correspondence between prosecution and defence counsel.  Prosecution had been provided with a report from Alcohol and Drug Service stating that given defendant's tolerance to amphetamine and unusually low quality of the drug, it was "absolutely reasonable" for her to claim it was for personal consumption and that it was "well within the boundaries of personal use" in respect of this particular defendant.

Count 2:

Count 3:

 

 

Details of Mitigation

 

Defendant 6 months pregnant with third child.  Children's Service had reported that a further period in custody would effectively put an end to the relationship between the defendant and her two children upon whom it would have a devastating effect.  Defendant now clean of drugs and submitting to random urine tests.

 

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Two including a serious drug trafficking in November, 1996, for which she was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment which was reduced to 3 ½ on appeal.

 

 

Conclusions:     Count 2 - 12 months probation  together with programme as set out by probation officer - drug education for young offenders; SMART programme; reference to employment services to gain re-employment Count 3 - 12 months probation concurrent with Count 2.

 

Sentence & Observation of the Court:

 

Court warned that if Crown had proceeded with the first Count then defendant would certainly have been sent to prison.  This might be her last chance.  Warned that if she were found guilty of any further drugs offence the Court might take a different approach.  Conclusions granted and warned to co-operate with Alcohol and Drugs Service and submit to random urine analysis and to co-operate in any way with the Service.  Forfeiture and destruction of drugs.

 

 

Mrs S. Sharpe,  Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:  You can sit down, but I want to look you in the eye when I talk to you.

 

I want to say this to you: if the Crown had proceeded with the first count, the time that you have already spent in prison for drug dealing would no doubt have meant your going back to prison, despite your family, and despite the fact you are going to have another baby in April - you understand. 

 

But the Court today is sentencing you for what the Crown has called simple possession of class B drugs, not supplying.  The rest is up to you; if you do have a determination to put drug abuse behind you, which seems to be born out by the reports that we read, this may be your last chance.  We are going to follow the conclusions of the Crown, but I want to tell you that if you are found guilty of any drug offence during the period that you are going to be put on probation the Court may take quite a different approach.   That is not a threat; this Court has no need to threaten anyone; it is a real warning. You will be put on probation for 12 months.

 

The authorities are bending over backwards to try to help you.  You will during the 12 months probation complete the 8 session programme outlined in the Drug Education for Young Offenders which is designed for drug users who are actively trying to change their drug use, as you appear to be.  Secondly, you will complete the SMART programme, that is 35 two hourly sessions at Highlands College on two evenings a week, and the Probation Service is well aware of the fact that you have got a young child and they will take that into account.

 

You will co-operate with the Probation Service who are going to try to find you some worthwhile employment by referring you to the employment services, and so they will also be able to help you; and you will attend the Alcohol and Drug Service as required, with a condition that you abstain totally from amphetamine sulphates, that you agree to random urine analysis, and that you co-operate with them in any way that they require.  You understand all that.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Authorities

 

Attorney General -v- Langley (15^th October, 1999,) Jersey Unreported

Attorney General  -v- O'Neill (26^th October, 1999,) Jersey Unreported

Attorney General -v- Galante (25^th November, 1996,) Jersey Unreported.