Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/30

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2nd February 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Leslie Rawlinson

 

Count 1: heroin	1 count of possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.
Count 2: heroin.	1 count of supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

 

Age:     32

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of heroin, albeit in small quantities, and admitted that he had given away some heroin to friends and had sold other quantities of heroin for approximately £300.00.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The accused had been co-operative after some initial difficulty.   The police found deal lists in his house which, when he was confronted with them he admitted were deal lists.   After a brief interlude of initial resistance he admitted fully his involvement with heroin.  He admitted that he was a heroin addict and that he sold heroin from time to time to fund his own purchase to feed his own addiction.   He had made the prosecution job very much easier by the fullness and frankness of the admissions which he had made although it was true to say that it would still have been possible to proceed with a prosecution given the physical evidence which had been recovered upon his arrest.   The accused was the father of a total of six children by two different mothers, none of whom he supported regularly.   It was a fact that he smoked heroin in the presence of the children.

 

 

 

Previous Convictions:

The accused had no previous convictions for drugs offences but had a catalogue of relatively minor motoring offences spanning back from fourteen years.   In 1998 he had been convicted of committing a grave and criminal assault on his girlfriend when she was pregnant.   He had broken her jaw and severely injured her at a time when she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.   In that event he was sentenced to eighteen months probation but had breached the probation order on two occasions. 2 convictions for

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 ½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court observed that the accused had previously breached probation orders when given the opportunity to avoid custody.   The accused also had a lengthy record which meant that he could not rely on good character by way of mitigation.   Although the accused had been co-operative and had to some extent written his own indictment, there was nevertheless evidence upon which the Crown could have prosecuted.   The Court observed that the accused had not shown any great motivation to rid himself of his addiction since he had only commenced attending the Drug Advisory Centre some two days before he was due to be sentenced by the Court.   The Court was unable to find that there were present in this case the exceptional circumstances necessary to enable it to depart from the policy of imposing custodial sentences for those who involve themselves in the supply of class A drugs.   The Court held that the Crown had allowed proper discount for the various elements of mitigation which in fact existed.   The Court held the Crown had properly allocated discount for the mitigation which was available and sentenced the accused as follows:

Conclusions granted.

 

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

            Advocate A. Clarke for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

                                         

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        On execution of a search warrant traces of heroin were found on foil in premises to which the Defendant had access, as was a document which appeared to be a deal list.   The Defendant when interviewed admitted selling some £300 worth of heroin over a period of weeks before his arrest and also to supplying some friends.

2.        This case is yet another example of the damage caused by heroin addiction.   Mr. Clarke has urged that it is an exceptional case and can be dealt with by way of a non-custodial sentence.  He relies on three main areas.   Firstly, he emphasis that the Defendant immediately admitted his guilt, pleaded guilty, and indeed, went beyond this by writing his own indictment.   We accept that this was so, although it is a case where there were traces of heroin and the deal list which the Defendant had to explain.   Secondly, Mr. Clarke emphasises the modest level of the dealing in drugs, namely a supply of only £300 worth and supply to friends.   Thirdly, he relies upon the background circumstances of the Defendant and he emphasises that this could be said to be a turning point and the Defendant is determined to conquer his drug habit.

3.        We have had the opportunity of reading the detailed Social Enquiry Report and the Report from the Drug and Alcohol Service.   We accept that the Defendant does now wish to try conquer his habit but it is not one where he has, for example, had much contact with the Drug and Alcohol Service on a voluntary basis because he wishes to conquer his habit.   He had made one enquiry with that service before his arrest but other contact has only occurred since then.

4.        In addition he has previously been placed on probation for a grave and criminal assault and it has to be said that he breached that on more than one occasion.   That is not encouraging therefore in respect of his response to non-custodial sentences.  

5.        We emphasise that in the case of dealing in class A drugs the imposition of a non-custodial sentence is exceptional.   Although we have considered very carefully all the points which Mr. Clarke made we have concluded that this is not an exceptional case which can be dealt with by way of a non-custodial sentence.  

6.        The conclusions of the Crown make, we believe, adequate discount for all the mitigating factors and we therefore impose a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment on count 1 and 2 ½ years imprisonment, concurrent, on count 2 and we order forfeiture and destruction of the foils and the heroin thereon.

Authorities

Campbell & Ors-v-AG (1995) JLR 135 CofA.

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

AG-v-Moreira & Monet (21^st January, 2000) Jersey Unreported.