Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/107

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

28^th May 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Janine Helene Munro-Rourke

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 19th April, 2002, following a guilty plea to:

 

2 counts of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug contrary to Article 61 (2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1999:
	Count 1: cocaine
	Count 2: MDMA

 

Age:  35.

 

Details of Offence:

116.85 grams of cocaine and 593 ecstasy tablets concealed within her.  Stopped at Jersey Airport.  

 

Details of Mitigation:

Single mother after death of U.S. born husband.  Death of husband led her to take drugs.  Committed offence to pay off drug debt after threats from dealers to her and two children.  Trying to straighten out even before offence.

 

Previous Convictions:

Four shoplifting convictions in UK.  

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	6 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
	Forfeiture and destruction of Drugs; £37 confiscation order.

 

11 year starting point.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
	Forfeiture and destruction of Drugs; £37 confiscation order.

 

Exceptional circumstances: particularly attempts to sort out her addiction and series of hammer blows in her life. 

 

N.M. Santos-Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. Fogarty for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This is a defendant with a heroin habit, and she was prevailed upon by dealers to undertake a drug run to Jersey, in exchange for the forgiveness of a drug debt of some £200 and other minor possible reward. 

2.        She imported 117 grams of cocaine with a street value of some £9,350, and 593 ecstasy tablets with a street value of some £7,116.  The drugs were concealed internally, but fortunately she was stopped by Customs Officers at the Airport.

3.        We must consider first the starting point.  If the offences stood alone we think that the starting point for the ecstasy offence should be 8 years rather than the 9 years suggested by the Crown, and the starting point for the cocaine offence would be 10 years.  But as the Court stated in A.G.-v- Valler we have to have regard to the overall level of involvement in drug trafficking.  If a starting point of 10 years for the cocaine offence is taken, and concurrent sentences are passed, the defendant would receive no greater sentence for importing 117 grams of cocaine, and 593 ecstasy tablets than she would have done if she had imported the cocaine alone.  Having regard to the overall level of drugs imported and the nature and scale of her activity as a courier, we think the starting point of 11 years suggested by the Crown is correct. 

4.        However, this is a case where there is exceptionally powerful mitigation.  We have read thoroughly the reports and we do not propose to rehearse all that appears from them.  In essence this offence arose out of the activities of her partner, from whom she had separated a mere 2 weeks or so before the offence; after he moved out, the dealers came to call, and disclosed that there was a debt owed by the partner although, to be fair, this had arisen also in respect of drugs that she had used.

5.        Threats were made to her and her children, and she was prevailed upon to undertake the run the next day.  However, as the Court has repeatedly said whilst understanding how difficult these situations can be, where a person puts himself or herself in debt to a drug dealer, by reason of taking drugs, it is to be expected that threats may be used in order to try and persuade that person to undertake drug trafficking activities.

6.        She has no previous drug convictions, although she does have convictions for dishonesty, which no doubt were to fund her habit.  She has two children; clearly the sentence which the Court will impose will have a serious effect on them.  One is being looked after by her brother and another by her mother.  She has made determined efforts to try and get off heroin, and we accept the evidence before us that these had begun before the events which gave rise to the present charges.  She is clearly extremely remorseful and we have read carefully the letters from her mother and others in this connection.

7.        Most particularly, we have had regard to the tragic background which no doubt led to the defendant coming to have a heroin dependency in the first place.  We do not propose to go into those details, but it is clear that the defendant suffered a series of hammer blows a number of years ago which led to her developing her heroin habit.  We have also had regard to all the other mitigation which has been referred to by Advocate Fogarty and which appears on the papers before us.  In all the circumstances we regard this as a fairly exceptional case; and we think that a further discount can be given for all the mitigating circumstances beyond the amount already allowed by the Crown.

8.        The sentence of the Court on count 1, is 5 years' imprisonment; on count 2, 4 years' imprisonment concurrent, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G.-v-Bailey (10^th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/4].

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-A.G. (2001) JLR 373 CofA.

Bonnar and Noon-v-A.G. (2001) JLR 626 CofA.

A.G.-v-Valler (28^th February, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/48].