Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/210

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th November, 2002.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Aklas Miah

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 13^th September, 2002, following guilty pleas 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: crack cocaine. Count 2: heroin.

 

Age:     38.

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

Miah was stopped at Jersey Airport and gave unsatisfactory responses in answer to questions asked of him.  A urine test was undertaken which proved positive for the presence of cocaine and opiates.  A subsequent x-ray of his person revealed evidence of foreign bodies concealed in his rectum.  Once he was shown the results of the x-rays he admitted that he was carrying packages internally.  He subsequently produced 4 packages, 3 containing crack Cocaine and the fourth containing Heroin.  The total quantity of crack cocaine was 44.97 grams with a street value of £10,792.08 (wholesale value £4,721.17).  The fourth package contained heroin weighing 357 milligrams valued at between £150 and £170 at street value (£70 wholesale value),

Subsequently with the assistance of Counsel he produced a Statement in which he named his supplier and provided background information as to the way in which the importation had been undertaken.  He indicated that he was prepared to have this information acknowledged in open Court and also to give evidence in the event that a prosecution was brought against the supplier or others.

The Crown took as its starting point 9 years' imprisonment and also sought a £1 Confiscation Order.

 

Details of Mitigation:

In terms of ordinary mitigation Miah was entitled to credit for his guilty plea but not 1/3^rd reduction given the circumstances of his arrest.  He was not of good character, although he was a first time drugs offender, and the seriousness of his current offending was significantly greater than the previous offences.   His last offence was more than 6 years ago.  Not particularly co-operative at the time of his arrest.  Reports were produced which described him as a naïve and unsophisticated man who was gullible and of limited intellectual abilities.  He had become involved in the offences in consequence of his own addiction.  In the light of this general mitigation the Crown would have moved for a sentence of 6 years.  However, because of the exceptional circumstances of the Statement provided by Miah and the acknowledgement in open Court the Crown felt that a further reduction was appropriate.  The Defence did not dispute the starting point or that a 1/3^rd reduction was not appropriate for the guilty plea.  Miah was a heroin addict at the time of these offences but not the typical heroin addict as he only became addicted at the age of 36.  He had successfully completed a detoxification programme whilst in custody.  Approximately 20 people either resident in the United Kingdom or in Bangladesh depended upon his employment.  He provided financial assistance to them and in particular was assisting in building a house for his family in Bangladesh.  The information that he provided was extremely detailed with a wealth of peripheral information.  He named his supplier in open Court.  It was suggested that additional credit should be given to him for actually naming the supplier in open court and also confirming in open Court that he was prepared to give evidence against the named supplier if a prosecution were brought.

 

Previous Convictions:

Common assault, indecent assault on female and public nuisance all dealt with by way of non-custodial penalties.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	3½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Miah imported approximately 45 grams of crack cocaine into Jersey in exchange for which he was to be paid £3,000.  Crack cocaine is particularly addictive and the Court was depressed to learn from the Crown that in the past few months crack cocaine had become more readily available in Jersey.  The Court agreed with the Crown's starting point of 9 years.  Based upon the ordinary mitigation the Court would have imposed a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment.  However, Miah had given the name of the supplier and other information regarding this importation.  He had acknowledged this in open Court and expressed a willingness to give evidence either against the supplier or others if necessary.  The Defence suggested that there was a difference between actually articulating the name of a supplier in open Court on the one hand and giving the name/information to the Police and acknowledging that that had been done on the other hand.  The Defence relied upon a sentence in the case of Bray -v- the Attorney General.  The Royal Court saw no such distinction.  The Court is concerned to encourage the provision of information to the Police, coupled with the acknowledgement in open Court that information had been given, so that others can be encouraged to behave in a similar manner in the knowledge that a substantial reduction in sentence will be made.  Whether a name is given in open Court is irrelevant to that process.  The Court expressed the view that they did not think that the sentence passed in Bray -v- The Attorney General was meant to mean otherwise.  In this case the Court felt able to give a slightly larger discount than had been provided for by the Crown.

 

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

Advocate C.M. Fogarty, for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Miah, you imported approximately 45 grams of crack cocaine into Jersey, with a street value of approximately £10,800; in exchange you were promised £3,000.  Crack cocaine is particularly addictive and it is depressing to hear from the Crown that, within the past few months, there has been an increase in its availability in Jersey.  We agree with the starting point of 9 years suggested by the Crown, having regarding to the amount involved and the nature of your involvement.

2.        In mitigation we take account of your guilty plea, of the fact that you have no previous drugs convictions, and of the circumstances in which this offence came to be committed as set out in the background reports.  Taking account of all the ordinary mitigation in this case we would have imposed a sentence of 6 years.  

3.        But you have given evidence of the identity of the drugs supplier in this case.  You have given other detailed information about the operation.  You have acknowledged this in open Court, and you have said that you are willing to give evidence against the supplier or any other person if necessary.  The Crown accepts the accuracy of the information given.

4.        Advocate Fogarty says that there is a difference between actually articulating the name of the supplier in open Court on the one hand, and giving the name and information to the police and acknowledging that that is what has been done, on the other hand.  She relies upon a sentence in the case of Bray -v- Attorney General (27^th January, 2000) Jersey Unreported CofA: [2000/16], a decision of the Court of Appeal.  We have to say that we see no such distinction.  What the Court is concerned to encourage is the provision of information to the police, so that they can progress investigations against other people, coupled with an acknowledgment in open Court, so that others can be encouraged to behave in a similar fashion in the knowledge that a substantial discount in the sentence will follow.  Whether the actual name of the alleged supplier is stated in open Court is irrelevant to this process.  We do not think that the sentence in the judgment in Bray was meant to suggest otherwise. 

5.        We emphasise that those who give information about drug dealers to the police, and acknowledge in open Court that they have done so, will be given a substantial discount in their sentence.  In this case we think a slightly larger discount should be given than that suggested by the Crown.  We think a discount of 3 years should be given.  The sentence of the Court therefore is; on Count 1: 3 years' imprisonment, on Count 2: 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent; the total is therefore 3 years' imprisonment, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer, Lusk, Bake -v- AG [2001] JLR 373.

A.G. -v- Islam & Chowdhury (14^th May 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2001/99].

Bray -v- AG (27^th January 2000) Jersey Unreported CofA: [2000/16].