Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/1

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th January, 2001

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

Jurats Quérée and Le Brocq

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

John Anthony Banach

 

 

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

                  count 2: diamorphine.

 

1 count of: receiving stolen property (count 4).

 

[Count 3 was withdrawn after the Crown had accepted a plea of not guilty].

 

Age:    31.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Counts 1 & 2: following a search of the premises occupied by Banach and his girlfriend, officers recovered four small plastic bags containing a total of 8.98 grams of heroin (35% purity by weight diamorphine with a street value of approximately £2,694 and a wholesale value of between £1,347 and £1,796); electronic scales containing traces of diamorphine; a deal list believed to be in Banach's handwriting indicating that Banach had supplied five persons in the past with heroin; and four ready-cut paper wraps (i.e. wraps into which heroin was to be put).  Each of the bags contained just over two grams of heroin.  In view of the fact that it had not been established conclusively that the deal list was Banach's the prosecution proceeded on the basis that Banach was in possession of approximately 2.25 grams (i.e. being approximately one quarter of the 8.98 grams of the combined weight of heroin in the four bags) with intent to supply to another or others and that the remaining quantity (of approximately 6.75 grams) was for Banach's personal use.  Count 4: receiving stolen property.  During the course of the search of Banach's premises the police recovered a 'Panasonic' digital video camera valued at £775 which had had the serial numbers erased.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

A plea of guilty (entered upon the indictment) was treated as valuable since Banach might have run a defence on the basis that the drugs belonged to his girlfriend (also a heroin addict who was living with him at the time).  The defendant's co-operation with the police to the extent that he admitted (albeit after initial denials) at his first interview that the heroin was his and also gave explanations to the police regarding his drug use, income, etc.  This was the defendant's first offence for possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply.  He had been a heroin addict since the age of 17.  The social enquiry report was very positive regarding Banach's present attitude towards drugs and his desire to continue to remain drug-free.  At 31 the defendant has matured and was willing to receive a naltraxone implant and had resumed contact with his five year old daughter to whom he wished to set a good example and had a good relationship with his mother.  The defendant was using his time in custody profitably to gain other interests and make new friends who were not connected with the drug trade and had entered his name on the list to enter the drug free wing at La Moye Prison.  The defendant's previous convictions were relatively minor, and the previous conviction for an attempt to obtain dihydrocodeine tablets by forging a prescription was an offence directly related to his long and sad history of drug abuse.  The conviction for possession of cannabis concerned six roach ends.  If ever there was a time for the Court to take positive steps to assist Banach combat his addiction this was such a time.  The defendant expressed his gratitude for the help that he has received from the probation office and from the staff at La Moye and his wish to turn the present crisis into something positive.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

1990: handling stolen property for which the defendant was fined £150.  1995: the defendant attempted to falsify a prescription in order to obtain 50 dihydrocodeine tablets for which he received 12 months' probation with 40 hours' community service; also being in possession of a controlled drug (cannabis, 6 roach ends) for which he was bound over for six months.

 

Conclusions: count 1: 2 years' imprisonment;

count 2: 4 years' imprisonment;

count 4: 4 weeks' imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

The Crown has adopted a starting point of 7 years in relation to count 2 and has allowed 3 years' discount in relation to all available mitigation.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Conclusions granted.  The Crown was correct to take a starting point of 7 years and had made sufficient allowance for all available mitigation.

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Gilbert for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.              This is a sad case of a young man whose life has been wasted by drug addiction.  He has pleaded guilty to possession with intent to the supply of 2¼ grams of heroin with a street value of approximately £670.  He was also found to be in possession of another 6½ grams of heroin but the Crown has accepted that this was for his own purposes.  Nonetheless this was commercial trafficking and Banach was helping to spread the misery and degradation which he himself has suffered as a result of his drug addiction.  The Crown has correctly taken a starting point of seven years' imprisonment.

 

2.              Defence counsel has said everything which could be said by way of mitigation but we think that the Crown Advocate has taken proper account of all those factors.

 

3.              The conclusions as accordingly granted and, Banach, you are sentenced on count 1 to two years' imprisonment; on count 2, to four years' imprisonment; on count 4, to four weeks' imprisonment, all those sentences to run concurrently, making a total of four years' imprisonment, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Authorities

 

A.G. -v- Morgan, Schlandt (20^th December, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

Campbell and Ors -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.