Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/205

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

20^th October, 2000

 

Before: M.C. St.J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Myles and Le Brocq

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Scott Preston Pearce

 

 

1 count of:   being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:

                    count 1: cannabis resin.

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 2: cannabis resin.

 

[Count 2 was withdrawn by the Crown].

 

 

Age:    20.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Defendant carried 56 packages of cannabis resin internally.  Total weight 243.27 grams, local street value £1,374.40.  Could have provided 68 deals of one-eighth ounce.  Accepted however cannabis was for personal use.  Defendant flew in from Gatwick having started his journey in Malaga where he had been working for five months.  During that time he had become addicted to cocaine.  On being searched, track marks were noted in his arms.  Following an x-ray showing foreign bodies in his abdomen, over the next four days the defendant passed a total of 56 packages of cling film wrapped cannabis resin.  Defendant was fully co-operative.  Said he had bought the cannabis resin cheaply in Spain.  He was returning home to try and wean himself off cocaine and the cannabis would help with his withdrawal.  He knew it was illegal to import the cannabis.  Pleaded guilty in Magistrate's Court and guilty on indictment.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Drug and Alcohol Service Report pervasive that cannabis was for personal use, there being no other known antidote to cocaine withdrawal.  Social Enquiry Report noted him as having a risk-taking personality and as someone who would try anything once.  His heroin and cocaine use had spiralled out of control but defendant did not concede that they presented him with real problems except for their illegality.  Defendant had already served the equivalent of four months ten days on remand.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Eight previous convictions comprising 33 offences.  Mostly minor offences.  1997: permitting premises to be used for production/supply/use of drugs.  1998: possession of heroin.  1999: fined £400 for DIC.

 

Conclusions:

 

Defendant subject to Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994.  Article 4(1)(a) and (c) applied.  Campbell starting point between 2 to 6 years' imprisonment for 1 to 10 kilos of cannabis.  This case involved less than a quarter of a kilo.  Accepted defendant did not intend to traffic.  Starting point therefore 12 months' imprisonment, less available mitigation - nine months' youth detention.  Count 2 withdrawn.  Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:         Conclusions granted.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.                  This defendant imported 243 grams of cannabis for his own use.  He has told us through counsel and also the Probation Officer that he is not willing to undergo probation, but Mr Tremoceiro has urged that we should impose a sentence of community service.

 

2.                  However, the defendant has come before the Court on two separate occasions for drug offences.  On each of those occasions he was given a non-custodial sentence but he has not taken advantage of the opportunities offered to him.

 

3.                  He is aged 20 and Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 applies.  However, we consider that there is no alternative to a custodial sentence because he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and, because, given his previous convictions, the offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  We have therefore turned our attention to the appropriate length of sentence but we consider that, in the light of the facts of this case, the Crown's conclusions are correct.

 

4.                  The sentence will therefore be one of 9 months' Youth Detention and we must warn you that following your release you will be subject to a period of supervision.  In addition, we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- Wakeling (1996) JLR N.19.

 

A.G. -v- Lopes (12^th May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Clarke (26^th September, 1997) Jersey Unreported.