Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/108

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

28^th May 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Ruth Theaker

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 26th April, 2002, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

1 count 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: MDMA

 

Age:     30

 

Details of Offence:

321 whole MDMA tablets plus loose fragments equating to a further 61 tablets, making a total of 382 tablets.  Tablets concealed internally.  Defendant stopped at Elizabeth Quay on 11^th March 2002.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Single parent with 10 year old son.  Partner was sent to prison.  Acted as a courier to pay off drug debt, mainly her partner's but partially hers.  Ageing parents in poor health will have to look after grandson.  Addicted to heroin.   

 

Previous Convictions:

Some minor previous convictions for theft and a caution in the UK for possession of heroin.   

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

4½ years' imprisonment; forfeiture and destruction of drugs; £70 confiscation order.  Starting point: 8 years. (approved)

 

 

 

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

4 years' imprisonment; forfeiture and destruction of drugs; £70 confiscation order.

 

Court felt itself able to reduce conclusions slightly.

 

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

Advocate A. Clarke for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This is yet another case of a heroin addict agreeing to smuggle drugs into Jersey in exchange for writing off her debt to her dealer.  In this case the defendant imported 382 ecstasy tablets with a street value of some £4,584.  The drugs were concealed internally but were detected at Jersey Harbour.  On the advice of her dealer she had brought her 11 year old son with her in order to try and make it less likely that she would be stopped.

2.        The Crown has suggested a starting point of 8 years on the basis of the quantity of the drugs.  The case of Bonnar and Noon (2001) JLR 626 CofA suggests that for 1 to 500 tablets there is a starting point of between 7 and 9 years.  Advocate Clarke has submitted that we should take a 7 year starting point, but we think having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Crown was correct to take a starting point of 8 years. 

3.        There is powerful mitigation in this case. In the first place it is clear that the offence arose immediately following her partner being sentenced to imprisonment.  The drug dealers then approached her and offered her heroin on credit.  Not long afterwards they called in the debt and said that it could be extinguished by her undertaking the run.  There were the usual threats which accompanied that suggestion.  As we have said on other occasions, it is unfortunately so often the case that those who incur debts to drug dealers will be subject to threats and it is not a matter to which this Court can give much weight.

4.        She has, however, pleaded guilty at an early stage and she has no previous drug convictions although, she does have convictions for dishonesty.

5.        She has shown herself determined to kick her drug habit and is making concentrated efforts in prison to do this.  We have received a number of letters and references from her family and others and they show that there is a very good side to this defendant.  Most significantly she has, as we have said, an 11 year old son.  He is now being looked after by her parents.  However, they are both in poor health.  We have seen the reports in that respect.  She had hitherto given considerable assistance in looking after them.  They now have to take on the burden of looking after her son.  It is clear from what we have been told that, in view of their health, there must be a possibility that one or more will not survive until the end of any prison sentence.  This would clearly have a considerable effect on the son and the grandparents as well as on the accused.  We take all this into account but, of course, these are so often the inevitable consequences of persons undertaking criminal activities such as these.  Nevertheless, having taking account of all the mitigation which appears from the papers before us, we feel able to increase slightly the deduction which the Crown has allowed.

6.        The sentence of the Court is one of 4 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Campbell & Ors -v A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

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