Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/253

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

20^th December, 2000

 

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

Myles, Le Ruez, Potter, Le Breton, Georgelin

 and Allo.

 

                                                     

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Christopher Timothy Harris

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 17^th November, 2000, following guilty pleas to:

 

First Indictment.

 

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

                  Count 1: cannabis;

                  Count 2: heroin.

 

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

                  Count 1: cannabis;

                  Count 2: heroin.

Second Indictment

 

1 count of  manslaughter.

                 

Age:   36.

 

Plea:  Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Harris injected his friend, Simon Gibbins, with heroin at his request and supervised Gibbins injecting himself.   Gibbins was also smoking heroin.  Gibbins died of heroin poisoning.  On being bailed by the Magistrates Court, Harris was found, a few days later, with a small quantity of cannabis and a further three days later with 957mg of heroin which he had purchased for £450.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Affected by discovery of his brother's body, 15 years ago, when his brother committed suicide. Plea of guilty.  Genuine remorse.   Effectively wrote his own indictment through frank admissions to the Police following his arrest.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

several since 1985, including possession and production of class B drugs and possession of class A drugs.

 

Conclusions:              

 

First Indictment

Count 1:    3 months' imprisonment.

Count 2:    9 months' imprisonment, (consecutive and to follow consecutively sentence imposed on 2^nd Indictment).

                     

Second Indictment

Count 1:   3½  years' imprisonment.

TOTAL:   4½  years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

First Indictment

Count 1:    3 months' imprisonment.

Count 2:    9 months' imprisonment, (concurrent, but consecutive to sentence passed on 2^nd Indictment).

 

Second Indictment

Count 1:    3 ½ years' imprisonment.

TOTAL:    4 years' 3 months' imprisonment.

 

 

 

                                           A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate

                                         Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.    We agree with the Crown: if ever there was a case which should send out a clear warning to those tempted to try controlled drugs, then this is it.

 

2.    Harris, it would appear, started glue sniffing at the age of 15.  He then moved on to cannabis; from there he moved on to LSD, magic mushrooms, and ecstasy, followed by amphetamines and cocaine.   Finally, in January of this year he started using heroin and by June he was so dependent on the drug that he was injecting himself some three times a day.  

 

3.    His friend, Simon Gibbins, also had a heroin habit and was keen to learn to inject himself.   Hitherto he had only smoked the drug.   On 14^th August,  at Gibbins' request, Harris injected Gibbins with a dose of heroin.   Later that evening he supervised Gibbins injecting himself for the first time with a further dose.   Coupled with the alcohol which he had consumed, this had tragic consequences for Simon Gibbins and led to his death from heroin poisoning.

 

4.    In R -v- Clarke and Purvis (1992) 13 Cr. App. R. (S) 552, the English Court of Appeal said that dabbling in the injecting of heroin was dabbling in potential death.   That Court made it clear that severe sentences would be passed in cases such as this in order to bring it home to those who chose to meddle in class A drugs, that they did so at their peril and that when death did intervene, however unexpectedly, conviction for manslaughter could follow and with it severe punishment.   This Court agrees with the approach of the English Court of Appeal in that case.   And in one respect this case could be said to be more series because, unlike Clarke, Harris has a bad record including several previous convictions for drug offences.

 

5.    But Mr. Tremoceiro has put forward much mitigation, and the Court is indebted to him for the way in which he has put it forward.   There is first, of course, the guilty plea for which the defendant is entitled to credit.    Secondly, it is accepted by the Crown that, had Harris not made an immediate and full admission of exactly what had happened, the charge of manslaughter might never have been brought.   He wrote his own indictment and is entitled, therefore, to additional credit for that.

 

6.    It is clear from the reports and from what counsel has said that Harris is indeed remorseful.  He had no intention of doing harm to his friend that evening.   It now weighs on his conscience and, of course, he also had a brother who committed suicide some 15 years ago and the two tragedies together are clearly very much on his mind.

 

7.    We take account of all the matters which Mr. Tremoceiro  put forward so well but the fact remains that as a result of this defendant's actions a young man has lost his life and the Court cannot overlook that.   The sentence passed must reflect that fact.   In the circumstances, taking all the matters into account, the Court has concluded that the sentence of 3½ years moved for by the Crown is correct.   We do, however, agree with Mr. Tremoceiro that the sentences for the two drug offences should be concurrent with each other.   Nevertheless, we are of the view that they should be consecutive to the sentence for manslaughter.   We have given consideration to the totality principle and as to whether an additional sentence for the drug offences of 9 months is correct and have concluded that it is.

 

8.    The sentence of the Court is as follows:  on the charge of manslaughter: 3½ years' imprisonment; on count 1 of the second indictment, 3 months' imprisonment; on count 2 of the second indictment, 9 months' imprisonment.  Those will be concurrent with each other but consecutive to the sentence passed on the charge of manslaughter making a total of 4 years' and 3 months' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

Clarke & Purvis (1992) 13 Cr. App. R (S) 552.

 

A.G. -v- Chevalier (9^th June, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

Chevalier -v- A.G. (29^th September, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Doyle (1995) JLR N.23.

 

A.G. -v- de la Haye (15^th December, 1995) Jersey Unreported.