Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/213

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

1^st November, 2000

 

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

                                                      Jurats Myles, de Veulle, Le Ruez, Rumfitt,

                                                       Quérée, Bullen, Le Breton, and Allo.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Elsa Alexandra Teixeira Presumé

 

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 20^th October, 2000 following a guilty plea to:

 

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

 

 

Age: 18

 

Details of Offence:

 

Imported 53.57 grams of heroin, with street value of £16,071.00.  Drugs were in a condom, which was wrapped in tissue paper and hidden in a pair of trousers in her hand baggage.  She was stopped by Customs after arriving on a flight from Luton.  She was  visibly shaking.  The drugs were easily found.  At interview, the defendant denied all knowledge of the drugs, saying that the heroin must have been 'planted'.  The heroin was 64% pure.  Importation could have supplied 535 score bags each containing sufficient heroin  for two to three 'chasers' or injections.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Defendant pleaded guilty on second appearance in Magistrate's Court and was frank with her probation officer regarding her involvement.  Defendant had good upbringing but fell into wrong crowd who introduced her to cannabis.  By the age of 16, she had become dependant on heroin.  Defendant, who was just 18, fell within the provisions of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.  Very young and extremely naïve.  Made drugs run to clear a debt and provide herself with heroin.  Although mitigation was available, defendant knew exactly what she was doing and watched the supplier pack the heroin, realising it was a significant quantity.

 

Previous Convictions: None

 

Conclusions:

 

5 years Youth Detention.  Starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, less deduction of 5 years to take account of youth, character, degree of co-operation, and guilty plea.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

3 years Youth detention.

The Court was divided: the minority would have sentenced her to 4 years' but the majority decided that 3 years' youth detention was appropriate.  Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  The court expressed the hope that the defendant would pursue her academic studies whilst in prison.

 

 

                                                 Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate

                                         Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.    This defendant agreed to do a drugs run in order to repay a debt to her dealer, and to secure some heroin for herself to feed her addiction.   She imported 53 grams of heroin with a street value of some £16,000.  The vast majority of this would have been passed on to her dealer, and would no doubt have found its way onto the streets of Jersey in due course, to cause degradation and distress to others.

 

2.    The first matter we have to consider is the correct starting point.   We remind ourselves of what the Court of Appeal said in Campbell, MacKenzie & Molloy -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA. in relation to the starting point:

 

"Much will depend upon the amount and value of the drugs involved, the nature and scale of the activity, and of course any other factors showing the degree to which the defendant was concerned in drug trafficking." 

 

3.    Having regard to the amount in this case, but also to our assessment of the degree of involvement of the defendant, we think that the correct starting point is nine years. 

 

4.    We then turn to matters of mitigation.  This defendant has no previous convictions; we have also received a number of references which show strong support for her and we have read the letter from her father.  She is only 18.  Youth plays a very important role in mitigation and Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 states that we may only impose a custodial sentence where we are satisfied that the offending is so serious that only a custodial penalty will suffice.   We are satisfied in this case that the offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

 

5.    The defendant is extremely remorseful, and it is clear that she is determined to try and overcome her drug addiction.  She has the support of her family and many of them are present in Court today to show that.

 

6.    This is in many ways a tragic case.  It shows the damage that can be done to a young life by drugs.  It is clear from the reports that she first acquired a dependency on cannabis.  It is described in Mr Saunders' report as a dependency which caused her to use it every day, and at times heavily.  

 

7.    Following that dependency she then moved on when she was about 16 to begin taking heroin, and she has since developed a serious heroin dependency.   A promising academic career was thrown away because of this.

 

8.    Taking into consideration all the strong mitigation in this case, particularly her youth, and the other matters which have been set out very fully in the papers before us, we think that the Crown's conclusions can be reduced.    The Court is however split, a minority of the Court would have imposed a sentence of 4 years imprisonment, but the majority would impose a sentence of 3 years.    Stand up please.  The sentence of the Court is that you will be sent to 3 years' Youth Detention.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, and we also express the hope that this defendant will be able to pursue her academic studies in prison.

Authorities

 

A.G -v- Chadwick (30^th October, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G -v- Newcombe & Wall (25^th November, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G -v- Busby (20^th January,1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

Campbell, MacKenzie & Molloy -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

A.G -v- Raffray (20^th July, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G -v- Cain (9^th September, 1996) Jersey Unreported

 

A.G -v- Connolly (10^th February, 1997) Jersey Unreported.