Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/55

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2^nd March, 2001

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

                                                      Jurats Le Ruez and Bullen

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Ernest Corvel

 

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

                    count 1: heroin;

                    count 5: diazepam;

                    count 7: temazepam.

 

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 4: cannabis.

 

[On 26^th January, 2001, the Crown accepted not guilty pleas to counts 2, 6, 8; count 3 was not proceeded with].

 

Age:    29.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offences:

 

On 25^th October, 1999, the Royal Court sentenced Corvel to 3 years' imprisonment in relation to a number of offences.  During the course of that term of imprisonment, Corvel became eligible for home leave on licence.  Corvel completed five visits on licence, returning to prison without incident.  On 13^th May, 2000, Corvel was detained and searched under Article 17(3) of the 1978 Law as he returned from home leave.  X-rays were subsequently taken which revealed concealed items within his body.  He subsequently produced four packages.  On analysis, the four packages were found to contain in individual packages 110.04 grams of cannabis, 852 mg. Of heroin containing 38% by weight of diamorphine, 8 temazepam tablets and 3 diazepam tablets.  The cannabis had a street value of £640 and the heroin had a street value of between £300 and £450.  The tablets had a total value not exceeding £22.  In ordinary circumstances, the amounts would have been considered as being personal amounts, but, as the drugs were intended for the prison, then they were considered to be of a far greater value and, therefore, were considered to be small commercial amounts.  Corvel claimed that he had bought 2 ounces of cannabis for £240 and that he had earned the money in prison, which he had then given to friends to take out for him.  The remainder of the cannabis and other drugs had been given to him as presents.  He contended that all the drugs were for his own personal use.  Corvel's original pleas of not guilty to possession with intent to supply charges were not accepted by the Crown, but 10 days before the trial date Corvel indicated that he would plead guilty to possession with intent to supply the cannabis.  The basis for this change in plea was, according to Corvel, that he had been given some cannabis when he first arrived and he was returning the favour by taken the cannabis into the prison to give it to the same person.  Whilst the Crown accepted Corvel's pleas of guilty to the possession charges in relation to the other drugs, given the quantity of heroin and that it was not, on his own admission, Corvel's "drug of choice", there was a very real concern that some of the heroin would have got into the hands of other inmates.  It was the Crown's contention that attempts to take drugs into prison was a serious matter and should be viewed as an aggravating factor.  Given the English authorities, the sentence for such offending should involve a deterrent element.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The Crown contended that there was little by way of mitigation.  Given the location of the four packages in Corvel's body, he had little or no choice other than to plead guilty.  However, he was deserving of some credit for the change in his plea on the possession with intent to supply cannabis charge.  He had what the Crown described as an "atrocious record", including previous convictions for drug related offences.  Defence counsel high-lighted the contents of the social enquiry report and the alcohol and drugs service report.  It was contended that the quantity was at the lower end of the scale and that there was no need to impose a deterrent element as the Jersey prison did not have the same problem which existed in the United Kingdom.  Corvel had an appalling family history.  It was acknowledged that he had a bad record and many offences had been committed due to "peer pressure" so that people would accept him.  He had taken random drug tests in prison for the last five months, all of which had proved negative.  Corvel was, effectively, institutionalised and defence counsel suggested that a probation order might be preferable in the circumstances to give Corvel a last chance to make something of his life.  He had a son with whom he wished to build a relationship and he had work available upon release.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Thirteen previous convictions, totalling 108 offences, including numerous for breaking and entry, larceny, malicious damage, motoring, kidnapping and the possession and supply of cannabis.

Conclusions:

 

Count 1: 6 months' imprisonment;

Count 4: 12 months' imprisonment;

Count 5: 1 month's imprisonment;

Count 7: 1 month's imprisonment,

All concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:    Conclusions granted.

 

Corvel had breached the privilege and trust placed in him by the prison authorities.  He had deliberately tried to bring drugs into the prison, of which some at least were intended for other inmates.  It was suggested that attempting to take drugs into prison was a serious offence and the Court agreed with this suggestion and concluded that such offences must attract a prison sentence.  The Court noted the matters of mitigation raised but considered, in the circumstances, that the conclusions of the Crown were correct.

 

 

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

Advocate N.M. Santos Costa for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.                  Corvel, you have betrayed the trust placed in you by the prison authorities and you quite deliberately attempted to smuggle drugs back into the prison.  Those drugs were, in part at least, intended for other prisoners.  It is true that the quantity of drugs was relatively small, but smuggling drugs into prison is a serious offence which must attract a custodial sentence.

 

2.                  We have taken into account all the matters raised, quite properly, by your counsel on your behalf, but we consider that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate are correct.  Therefore, on count 1, you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment; on count 4, to 12 months' imprisonment; on count 5, to 1 month's imprisonment; on count 7, to 1 month's imprisonment.  All those sentences will run concurrently and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

Thomas: Current Sentencing Practice: pp. 25514, 25514/2 - 25515.

 

Gregory -v- A.G. [1997] JLR 1 CofA.

 

A.G. -v- Jeffery (11^th December, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- McCormack (30^th April, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

R. -v- Freeman [1997] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 224.

 

R. -v- Farooqi [1999] 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 379.