Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/29

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2^nd February, 2001

 

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

Jurats Potter and Tibbo

 

The Attorney General

-v-

John Thomas Burns

 

 

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 1: heroin.

 

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

                    Count 2: heroin.

                    Count 3: heroin.

 

Age:   29

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to supply and two counts of supply of heroin. The accused had been apprehended at his home address but was able to destroy the drugs by flushing them down the toilet before the police could secure his arrest.   Having been arrested he then proceeded to make a remarkably frank disclosure, without which it is doubtful that any prosecution could have taken place.   The accused was a twenty nine year old man who had had a reasonable upbringing but who had drifted and failed to fulfil his potential.   He had become dependant and addicted to heroin and expressed great remorse to the police together with an intention to use the opportunity of his arrest as the moment when he would try his hardest to remove himself from the drug.  This was a cri de coeur.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The accused, through exceptional frankness and honesty, made admissions without which no prosecution would have been pursued.   There was no physical evidence of the drug upon which to base a prosecution.   The accused was a youngish man who had reached a point in his life where he recognised that without help he was going to continue to spiral downwards.  He loathed himself for his addiction to heroin and realised that the effect of his arrest was to provide him with an opportunity to kick the addiction.   He appeared highly motivated and, before being sentenced, had attended voluntarily at the Drug and Alcohol Centre on several occasions.   The Probation and Drug and Alcohol Advisory Reports indicated a highly motivated individual who presented a strong prospect of rehabilitation.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Relatively minor offences of dishonesty and miscellaneous motoring offences over a number of years; a couple of minor cannabis offences some eight years prior to the current offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:   2 years' imprisonment.

Count 2:   2 years' imprisonment.

Count 3:   2 years' imprisonment, all concurrent

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Although the conclusions moved for by the Crown were in line with established policy the Court felt that it was faced in this instance with a Defendant who showed a strong potential to rehabilitate and who had provided a truly exceptional level of co-operation to the police, without which there would have been no prosecution.   The Court warned him as to his future behaviour and indicated that this was his last chance.  The Court therefore ordered the accused to perform two years probation on condition that he attend the Drug and Alcohol Advisory Service and that he should undertake regular urine testing.   The Court warned him that if the testing revealed the presence of drugs, he could be in breach of the probation order and would be brought back before the Court for sentencing.  If that were to happen then the Court would have no option other than to imprison him.

 

M.St. J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.E. Fitz for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            This defendant has admitted to two instances of supply of heroin.  The normal policy of the Court is clear: supply of Class A drugs results in a sentence of imprisonment.  However, Miss Fitz has urged that this is an exceptional case and she relies on three grounds.

 

2.            The first is that the defendant wrote his own indictment to an exceptional degree.  The Court accepts that that was so.  When the police searched his premises no drugs whatsoever were found and there was no substantive evidence of possession or supply but the defendant made voluntary admissions of what he had done.  It is quite clear that without those admissions no charges of any nature would have been brought.

 

3.            Secondly, she says that the amount involved in the supply was extremely small.  There were two occasions of supply and the total value of the drugs supplied was some £150.  We accept therefore that the level of supply was very small.

 

4.            Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, she has urged that the defendant is at a turning point.  He has made repeated efforts to give up heroin and to overcome his addiction and the present case offers a further opportunity for him to pursue that.

 

5.            We have read the reports most carefully and the report from the director of the alcohol and drugs service says: "He regards his recent arrest by the Police as a "wake-up call" to overcome "this terrible hold that Heroin has over me"."  The director goes on to say that he believes the defendant is determined to use this offending as an opportunity to change.  We accept that the defendant has made considerable efforts and is genuinely determined to try and conquer his addiction.  If he does that he is unlikely to re-offend.

 

6.            Taking all these matters into account we do accept that the case can be treated as an exceptional one.

 

7.            Stand up, Burns.  We are going to place you on probation for two years with a condition that you undertake treatment as directed by the alcohol and drug service and that may well include random urine testing.  You must understand that if you fail to do what the alcohol and drugs service tells you, or of course if you commit any other further offences, including possession of drugs, you will be brought back here; you will have had your opportunity and the Court is sure you can guess what the outcome will be.  This is a chance for you; take advantage of it.

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- de Lima (30^th June, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Miah (12^th January, 2001) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Postill (2^nd October, 1995) Jersey Unreported.