Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/88

5 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

25^th May, 2000

 

 

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

                                                      Jurats Le Ruez, Rumfitt,

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Darren Price

Bridget Claire Bass

 

Darren Price

 

 

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

                  Count 1: diamorphine..

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 2: methadone.

1 count of  supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

                  Count 3: methadone.

 

Age:     22.

 

Plea:   Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

The accused came to Jersey from Ireland in an attempt to break their addiction to heroin.  They were found in joint possession of a personal quantity.  In addition Price was found in possession of 93 methadone tablets.  He admitted importing them for personal use and was sentenced on that basis.  He also admitted having given 4 methadone tablets to a fellow addict as a favour.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

No commercial intentions.  Youth.  Character plea.

 

Previous Convictions:    No previous for drugs.  ( wanted on warrant from Ireland on charges of possession with intent to supply  £100,000 worth of heroin.)

 

Conclusions:               Count 1:                            12 months' imprisonment.

                      Count 2:   3 ½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      Count 3:   1 ½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      TOTAL:    3 ½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

                                     

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

                      Count 1:   6 months' imprisonment.

                      Count 2:   2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      Count 3:   1 ½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      TOTAL:    2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

Bridget Claire Bass

 

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

                  Count 1: diamorphine.

 

Age:   19.

 

Plea:   Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

The accused came to Jersey from Ireland in an attempt to break their addiction to heroin.  They were found in joint possession of a personal quantity.  In addition Price was found in possession of 93 methadone tablets.  He admitted importing them for personal use, and was sentenced on that basis.  He also admitted having given 4 methadone tablets to a fellow addict as a favour.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

No commercial intentions.   Youth.  Character plea.

 

Previous Convictions:        No previous of any sort.

 

Conclusions:               17 months, 17 days Youth Detention.  (Equivalent to time already served).                                             

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:   Absolute discharge.

 

 

 

                                              C.E.Whelan, Esq., Crown Advocate

                                          Advocate Mrs. S.A. Permain for D. Price

Advocate D. Gilbert for B.C. Bass.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.    These defendants came to Jersey in September, 1999.  They are both heroin addicts.   They came to Jersey to try and break their habit.   Price brought with him something in the region of 100 methadone tablets.  This was to counter the effects of withdrawal from heroin.   After arrival in Jersey Price gave a few of these tablets, some three or four, to his friend, Thomas Kennedy, who was also a heroin addict.  The value of the methadone is hard to establish as there is no market for this drug.

 

2.    The defendants' premises were searched on 2^nd October and on that occasion 93 tablets of methadone were found together with 208 milligrams of heroin which had been purchased and used by the defendants' whilst  in Jersey.

 

3.    The Crown accepts that the methadone was imported for personal use and that the supply of a few tablets of methadone by Price to Kennedy was not for reward; it was merely a favour to a friend.

 

4.    The Crown  has referred to the case of Gregory -v- A.G. (1997) JLR 1 C.of A.   That case dealt with the importation of class A drugs for personal use.   In that case, Gregory had imported 8.54 grams of heroin as well as 139 tablets of methadone.  The Court of Appeal took a starting point of 6 years and the Crown in this case has taken a similar starting point.   In the case of Gregory a deduction of 2 years was made by way of mitigation so that a sentence of 4 years was passed on Gregory who was a person who had previous convictions for drug offences, including importation and possession with intent to supply.

 

5.    We think that the facts of this case are less serious than those in Gregory.  The gravamen of Gregory's case was the importation of some £2,500 worth of heroin.   The methadone was comparatively minor and a secondary aspect.

 

6.    Accordingly, it is our view that for the importation of this quantity of methadone, which as we say is not a drug which has a ready market, a starting point of 4 years is appropriate.    From this we must make allowance for the available mitigation.  The defendant has pleaded guilty, and it has been pointed out by his counsel this is a guilty plea of worth because the importation was only proved as a result of his admissions.   He has no previous convictions for drug offences.   In  a sense, he wrote his own indictment on the importation and indeed on the supply charges and he also has his youth as a mitigating factor.

 

7.    Accordingly, the sentence on Price will be as follows: count 1: 6 months' imprisonment; count 2: 2 years imprisonment; count 3: 18 months' imprisonment.  All of those sentences to be concurrent, in other words a total of 2 years.

 

8.    I turn now to Miss Bass.  She appears before the Court simply for possession of 208 milligrams of heroin, a small personal amount.   She is a first offender, having no previous convictions of any nature.  She is also a young offender,  aged 19.   She has served the equivalent of 11 months' and 17 days' imprisonment by way of remand in custody pending this case because she originally faced more serious charges.   However, given that she is now to be dealt with simply for possession of a small amount of heroin and that she is a first offender, the principles set out in A.G. -v- Buesnel  (1996) JLR 265 would suggest that a non-custodial disposal would be the right course.   As I say, the difficulty in this case is that she has already served a sentence equivalent to some 11 months'.   It has been put to us that it would, therefore, not be right to deal with this matter by way of a binding over order or a conditional discharge because this would leave it hanging over her so that she would, in effect, have been punished twice.   It has therefore been suggested, both by the Crown and by the Defence, that we should pass a prison sentence, albeit that there has been disagreement as to the length.   However, we do not think it would be correct to pass a prison sentence.   Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 says that we may only pass a prison sentence where the offending is so serious that a non custodial sentence cannot be justified.   In the light of A.G. -v- Buesnel and the facts of this case we cannot say that in this case.   Accordingly we decline to pass a custodial sentence. That really leaves only one alternative.   So, in the very exceptional circumstances of this case we grant an absolute discharge to the defendant because she has already been punished to the extent of the equivalent of an 11 month sentence. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

9.    Finally, there is the question of costs.   Counsel for Miss Bass has applied for costs in relation to the other charges which Miss Bass originally faced in the Magistrate's Court and which have not been proceeded with.   The Court has been referred by the Crown to the case of A.G. -v- Jones (19^th November, 1999) Jersey Unreported, which makes it clear that in such circumstances the accused has not been discharged from a prosecution, or acquitted, with the result that there is no jurisdiction to grant costs.   This case was not drawn to our attention by Defence Counsel although its existence had apparently been drawn to her attention prior to her appearance in Court.   Whether that is the case or not,  it is Counsel's duty to research the law before making an application and to bring the relevant authority, whether it is for or against, to the attention of the Court.  That duty was not fulfilled on this occasion.   The application is refused.

Authorities

 

A.G.-v- Jones (19 November, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

Gregory -v- A.G. (1997) JLR 1 of C.of A.

 

A.G. -v- Buesnel (1996) JLR 265.