Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/188

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

10^th October 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Khalel Siddique Ahmed

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 9th August, 2002, following guilty pleas to:-

 

3 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 Count 1: cannabis resin Count 2: heroin Count 3: cocaine
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: heroin.

 

[On 17^th May, 2002, the defendant pleaded guilty to counts 1 - 3 and not guilty to counts 4 and 5 of the Indictment; on 9^th August, 2002, the defendant changed his plea to guilty on count 4, and the Crown accepted a not guilty plea to count 5].

 

Age:     31.

 

Details of Offence:

Found in possession in home.  No unusual circumstances.  Quantity of heroin 5.249 grams.   Quantity of crack cocaine 8 rocks.  Quantity of cannabis 816 milligrams.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Said in open Court on day of sentence that he informed Police about drug dealers i.e. he made his text public.  Also has given evidence against accused in separate action.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent
Count 4:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent

 

Recommendation for deportation

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent
Count 4:	2  years' imprisonment, concurrent

 

Unusual situation, because openly gave evidence against drug dealer in another case, which Royal Court wants to encourage.  No recommendation for deportation due to 4 year old daughter in Jersey and wife's ill health.

 

N.M. Santos Costa Esq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Of the 4 counts of the indictment the most serious is the possession of heroin with the intent to supply.  Ahmed changed his plea to guilty on that account after a trial had been arranged to commence on 28^th August, 2002.  He pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply 5.294 grams of heroin.  The Crown accepts that whilst some of this heroin may have been for personal use, most of it would have been sold, particularly as he has a crack cocaine preference and does not inject heroin. 

2.        The Crown's argument is that the heroin seized was mixed with glucose to bulk it out this would have made it difficult to burn sufficiently for it be smoked, but Advocate Juste says that he did not know that.  The larger wraps contained smaller wraps.  The Crown's contention, based on expert advice, was that personal users do not sub-divide their heroin; Advocate Juste says that this was done to prevent his small daughter from finding it on a home visit. 

3.        Ahmed's personal finances at the time of his arrest showed outgoings of over £700 per week and income of only £280 per week; but Advocate Juste explained that by saying that he borrowed substantially for these purposes.  We cannot test those discrepancies; we must merely accept that discrepancies may exist.

4.        The case of Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-A.G. [2001] JLR 373 CofA suggests a starting point of 7 years and bearing in mind that some of the heroin was for personal use, we accept that starting point. 

5.        Ahmed is in an unusual situation:  not only has he made a statement to the police but he is to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.  We agree entirely with the Crown that this is valuable mitigation.  The cases of A.G.-v- Akehurst (29 July, 1996) Jersey Unreported, A.G.-v- Breeze (1^st May, 1997) Jersey Unreported, and Bray-v-A.G. (27^th January, 2000) Jersey Unreported, CofA [2000/16] are helpful in this regard, and we accept the Crown's view that our sentencing in this regard should allow for exceptional circumstances.

6.        We do not think that the Crown has allowed sufficient mitigation for the fact that  this decision has been made in public; we feel it was a courageous act, and we feel that that requires public acknowledgment. 

7.        The 3 other counts are all concerned with possession; we would only remark that it is disturbing that cannabis and heroin have had added to them the highly addictive and deadly, drug crack cocaine.  Ahmed, we accept that the possession of the first amount of heroin, cannabis and crack cocaine were for personal use. On that basis we are going to sentence you to 1 month's imprisonment on count 1; 1 year's imprisonment on count 2; and 1 year's imprisonment on count 3.  All those are concurrent, and concurrent with the more serious offence to which you eventually pleaded guilty.  Because of your co-operation we are able to make a substantial reduction, which also allows for your plea of guilty and we are going to sentence you overall to 2 years' imprisonment, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

8.        We now must have a look at the suggested deportation order.  We have had regard to R-v-Nazari [1980] All ER 880 CA and to the more recent case of The Queen & Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Samaroo (17^th July, 2001).  The fact that you have a failed marriage is one thing but the particular health situation of your wife, and of the 4 year old child, to whom you are clearly attached, according to the probation report, leads us to the conclusion that a deportation order would not be appropriate, and we make no such order.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): pp.119-126.

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-A.G. [2001] JLR 373 CofA.

A.G.-v- Akehurst (29 July, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G.-v- Breeze (1^st May, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

Bray-v-A.G. (27^th January, 2000) Jersey Unreported, CofA [2000/16].

R-v-Nazari [1980] 3 All ER 880 CA.

The Queen & Home Secretary re Samaroo (20^th December, 2000) Unreported Judgment of the High Court of England Case No. CO/4973/1999.

R-v-Home Secretary [2001] EWCA Civ 1139