Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/110

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

31^st May 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Horacio Bernardo Rocha Andrade

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 1: heroin
1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 (c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 : Count 2: heroin.

 

 

Age:     21

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Following execution of a drugs warrant defendant was found with 226 milligrams of heroin concealed in three wraps in his sock and £1,081 in cash.  On searching his home, a carrier bag was found with small circles cut out of it, similar to the plastic used to wrap the heroin found on his person.  At interview he admitted he had allowed his premises to be used for the preparation of packages of heroin for onward sale.  Sometimes the actual sale took place at his premises.  He benefited from the agreement by receiving heroin for his own consumption at a reduced price.

 

Details of Mitigation:

He met a man who turned out to be a drug supplier and who introduced him to heroin.  Once he was addicted, the man persuaded him to allow his premises to be used for supplying others.  21 years old at date of indictment but 20 offences were committed.  No previous drugs related convictions.  Guilty plea although caught in flagarante delecto (count 1); wrote his own indictment in respect of count 2.  Was co-operative with police and made frank admissions in respect of count 2.  Unstable family background.  Strong support from his employer, for whom he had worked for two years.   

 

Previous Convictions:

15 x counts of false pretences; taking and driving away and associated motoring charges; breaking and entering and larceny and simple larceny.   

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	5 months' imprisonment; 8 months' starting point.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent; 7 years' starting point.

 

Deportation to be recommended to Lieutenant Governor.  £1,081 unopposed confiscation order.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	5 months' imprisonment;
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment.

 

No recommendation for deportation; satisfied defendant had made home in Jersey for last 11-12 years with no family in Madeira: recommendation for deportation would be disproportionate.

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. de C. Mourant for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has pleaded guilty to offences of possession of heroin and of being knowingly concerned in the supply of heroin.  The total weight of heroin found in his possession was 226 milligrams and had the street value of about £150.  He admitted that he had allowed another man to use his premises for the preparation of commercial quantities of heroin for subsequent distribution to other users.  Andrade benefited from this by receiving heroin for himself.  He also had over £1,000 in cash in his possession at the time of his arrest.  He was clearly involved in the trafficking of heroin.

2.        Andrade does not have a good record.  He has a number of convictions for offences of dishonesty but he has no previous conviction for offences involving drugs.  Andrade has shown remorse for the offences and has claimed that he could not find a way out of his addiction.  We accept that he was duped into trying heroin and that he did not appreciate how easily he would become addicted to this pernicious and evil drug.  However, he did not seek help for his addiction and he was prepared to play a part in its distribution in the community and in the potential corruption of other young people. 

3.        In mitigation he has pleaded guilty to the indictment and he has been frank and co-operative with the police.  He is aged only 21 and that is another important mitigating factor.  We have taken into account all the matters raised by counsel for the defendant, but we think that the Crown Advocate has given full weight to the mitigation available.  We mention that we have also noted and applaud the considerable help given to the defendant by his employer, Mr. Letto.  The defendant is fortunate to have his friendship and guidance.  We have taken all these matters into account but as we have said we consider that the conclusions are right.  On count 1, taking a starting point of 8 months' imprisonment we sentence the defendant to 5 months' imprisonment.  On count 2 we take a starting point of 7 years' imprisonment and impose a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of eighteen months' imprisonment.

4.        We turn to the more difficult question of whether or not we should make a recommendation for deportation.  We think that it is sufficient to say that, viewing the matter in the round, we are satisfied that Andrade has made his home in Jersey for the last or eleven or twelve years and that it would be a disproportionate punishment to recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that he be deported from the island.  We therefore decline to make a recommendation for deportation.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.     

 

 

Authorities

AG -v- de la Haye and Kearney. (15^th December 1995) Jersey Unreported.

AG -v- Munks (8^th October 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/168A]

Rimmer and ors. -v- AG (2001) JLR 373 CofA.

Monteiro -v-  AG (7^th August 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/177] 

R -v- Nazari (1980) 3 All ER 880.