Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/11

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12th January, 2001

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Suna Miah

First Indictment

5 counts of:	possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 1: diamorphine. Count 3: diamorphine. Count 4: diamorphine. Count 5: diamorphine. Count 6: cannabis.
1 count of:	possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 2: diamorphine

 

Second Indictment

1 count of:

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

 

Breach of 12 month Probation Order, made on 26th July, 2000, in Magistrate's Court on guilty pleas to 1 count of grave and criminal assault; 1 count of possession of heroin and 1 count of causing breach of the peace.

 

Age:     26

 

Plea:    Guilty; breach admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

On 27th May, 2000, Miah was seen acting in a furtive manner.  He was stopped and searched under the Misuse of Drugs Law.  He was found to be in possession of a small bag containing 99mg. Of heroin.  On interview, he admitted that he was a registered heroin addict and that he was on a methadone programme.  He had purchased a small amount from his usual supplier who he was not prepared to name.  He was released, pending analysis of the brown powder (count 1 of the first indictment).  On 31st July, 2000, plain clothed officers on duty stopped a known heroin addict for the purposes of searching him.  No controlled substances were found.  The individual was in possession of £30.  He was not detained but was covertly observed.  A short while later, he was seen to meet with Miah.  Following a conversation, Miah left and was then observed returning and the other male was seen to pass something to Miah, which was placed in the right rear trouser pocket.  The police officers decided to stop both men and search them.  When the police officers took hold of Miah, he struggled and it was noted that he had something in his mouth which he was attempting to swallow.  He was prevented from doing so and, having been placed on the ground, he spat out four packages containing brown powder.  The other individual was, once again, detained and searched and, again, no controlled substance was found but it was noted that he was no longer in possession of the £30 cash.  A subsequent search of Miah, at police headquarters, found two separate bundles of cash in Miah's rear right trouser pocket, being £30 and £181.  At police headquarters, Miah produced another bag of brown powder which he had concealed in his mouth (count 4).  A search warrant was conducted at Miah's home address and the police seized a bag of brown powder which was hidden inside a mobile phone (count 5) and a tobacco pouch containing a lump of cannabis resin (count 6).  In interview, Miah admitted possession of all of the drugs that were found on him and at his home address, but denied that he was a drugs supplier or, more particularly, that he had supplied the other individual.  The drugs were analysed and the four bags of brown powder, that Miah spat out of his mouth at the time of his arrest, were found to weigh a total of 950 mg.  DC de la Haye expressed the opinion that the total weight of heroin involved in the case was a personal amount, but the way that it was individually packaged and the way in which Miah behaved was typical of a drug supplier in Jersey, and, therefore, the opinion was that Miah was in possession of a small commercial amount of heroin with a street value of approximately £400.  Whilst on remand at La Moye Prison, traces of diamorphine were found hidden in Miah's documents, and he was subsequently interviewed and admitted possessing approximately £10 worth of heroin whilst on remand.  He stated that he had been supplied by a fellow inmate, whom he refused to name (second indictment).  All of these offences, save for count 1, were committed by Miah when he was on probation from the Magistrate's Court for other offences which included one charge of possession of heroin.  The offending was further aggravated by the possession of heroin whilst on remand.  Miah pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply, but on the basis that he was to share £30 worth of heroin with a friend.  He maintained his stance that the remainder of heroin found on him was for personal use.  Although initially not acceptable to the Crown, because of the absence of certain evidence, the Crown reluctantly accepted Miah's version of events and his plea.  Because offending was committed whilst on probation, he also fell to be sentenced for the previous offences which included: (1) grave and criminal assault; (2) possessing heroin; (3) breach of the peace.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Miah pleaded guilty, although it was arguable that he had little alternative.  In general terms, he had been co-operative with the police, although he did not name the supplier.  According to the reports provided, Miah was now drug-free and had stated his intention of remaining drug-free.  However, the reports considered he remained at high risk of re-offending.  Prior to coming to Jersey in 1997, he had been close to his family and, whilst in Jersey, he had been introduced to alcohol and then drugs, which resulted in him offending.  He had lost his parents' respect because of his offending.  His family was important to him and he did have family responsibilities which he acknowledged he had previously neglected.  It remained his stated intention to remain drug-free and would co-operate and obtain assistance from the alcohol and drugs service upon release.  Through defence counsel he acknowledged that there was no alternative to a custodial sentence, particularly in the light of his criminal record and his repeated failure to comply with non-custodial sentences.  The heroin found in his possession at La Moye Prison was only traces and, without his admissions, it was unlikely that he would have been charged with an offence.  He had also been punished in that he had been subjected to restricted visits in consequence.  Through counsel, he apologised for his behaviour and three references were handed to the Court in support.

 

Previous Convictions:

Eight previous convictions, including grave and criminal assault, common assault, motoring offences, including excess alcohol, and public order offences.  One previous for possession of heroin.

 

Conclusions:

 

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive;
Count 3:	to remain on file;
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent;
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent;
Count 6:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Second Indictment

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.
	Breach of Probation Order: 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

 

TOTAL:  19 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment;
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment;
Count 6:	1 week's imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

Second Indictment

Count 1:

3 months' imprisonment, consecutive. Breach of Probation Order: 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

 

TOTAL:  18 months' imprisonment.

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Miah has pleaded guilty to possession of heroin on three separate occasions.  On one of those occasions he was going to supply part of his consignment to a friend for £30.  One of the offences of possession was committed whilst he was in La Moye Prison and two of them were committed whilst he was on probation for offences which in turn included possession of heroin.

2.        We have taken account of the mitigation put forward by Mr Tremoceiro and we have read carefully the references which have been produced to us.  But as Mr Tremoceiro and Miah have realistically accepted, there is no alternative to a custodial sentence in view of Miah's record and his repeated failure to respond to non-custodial sentences.

3.        We agree with Mr Tremoceiro that count 1 should be dealt with concurrently because it occurred prior to the offences for which he was placed on probation in July.  However we think that the offence on the second indictment - that of possession at La Moye Prison - merits more than the sentence moved for by the Crown.  We imagine that the Crown had the totality principle in mind but a person who possesses heroin in La Moye Prison, when  he is already facing charges for possession of heroin, can expect a meaningful consecutive sentence, notwithstanding the two points in mitigation on this aspect which Mr Tremoceiro mentioned.

4.        Stand up, Miah.  Taking the first indictment, on count 1, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment; on count 2, 12 months' imprisonment; on count 3, 3 months' imprisonment; on count 4, 3 months' imprisonment; on count 5, 1 month's imprisonment; on count 6, 1 week's imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent, therefore making 12 months' imprisonment on the first indictment.

5.        On the second indictment the sentence will be 3 months' imprisonment to be consecutive and for the breach of probation, you will be sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment concurrent for each of the three offences for which you are on probation at the moment but those sentences will in turn be consecutive to the others, making a total of 18 months' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

No Authorities.