Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/238

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

13^th December 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Fabio Joaquin Gouveia Ferreira

 

1 count of:	Driving without a licence, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (count 1);
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948 (count 2);
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 3: MDMA;
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 4: MDMA;
1 count of:	Obstructing police in execution of their duty (count 5).

 

[On 18^th October 2002, the Crown took the decision not to proceed with count 4.]

 

Age:     20.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Defendant arrested 6^th July 2002 after routine stop check.  Had no licence to ride motorcycle (Count 1) and no insurance (Count 2).

Defendant arrested again 26^th July 2002 for obstruction of a drug search at 23.30 hours in Conway Street, St Helier (Count 5).  Following arrest, Ferreira was taken to Police HQ and eventually handed over a coin bag containing 25 MDMA tablets.  Had at total of £418 in cash on him that night.  (Counts 3 & 4).  Admitted supplying friends with MDMA on a regular basis over period of several months in order to fund his own Ecstasy habit.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas to all counts at an early stage.  Although initially ran away from Police, once caught, defendant very cooperative with Police.  Crown took into account all information in papers before the Court.  Defendant had appeared to face charges, having been remanded on a warning since 29^th July 2002 on various conditions.  Arresting officer not seriously injured in consequence of Defendant's obstruction.  No previous convictions re drug offences.  Youth.  In addition, defendant naïve, emotionally immature; not an experienced or cynical street dealer re drugs.  Defendant "wrote his own indictment" re supplying others.  Profit was used purely to fund his own drug use.  SER contained strong recommendation for individualised measure.  Good employment record and supportive family.  Defendant had taken a positive attitude to his life since arrest.  Had ceased all drug abuse and abandoned his former circle of delinquent "friends".  Had not re-offended since the summer and was determined to turn his life around.  Described as "terrified" of receiving custodial sentence. 

      

Previous Convictions:

Magistrate's Court record, mainly for various motoring offences including previous convictions for driving without licence and driving without insurance.    Drunk and disorderly, breach of the peace.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 weeks' Youth Detention; 3 months' disqualification from driving.
Count 2:	3 months' Youth Detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 ½ years' Youth Detention consecutive (7 year starting point).
Count 5:	2 months' Youth Detention concurrent.

 

Total: 3 years 9 months' Youth Detention; 2 years disqualification from driving.

Crown made no recommendation for deportation as defendant had made his home in Jersey with his parents. 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	£200 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment, to be paid by 31st January, 2003; 3 months disqualification from driving.
Count 2:	90 hours Community Service Order; 1 year's disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months Probation Order; 240 hours Community Service Order, concurrent.
Count 5:	70 hours Community Service Order; concurrent.

 

Total:    £200 fine or 1 month's Youth Detention in default of payment; 1 year's disqualification from driving; 240 hours' Community Service Order.

In relation to count 3 (supply of Ecstasy) Crown's starting point of seven years was correct.  There were just enough exceptional circumstances, however, to rake this case into the category of an exceptional one.  What had 'tipped the balance' was that the defendant had ceased using drugs - he had dealt with his drugs problem by himself.  Court did not feel it was necessary to send defendant to prison. 

 

A.J. Olsen, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.R.G. Deacon for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant sold ecstasy tablets to his friends in order to fund his own ecstasy habit.  By buying them at £6.00 per tablet and selling them at £10.00 he was able to pay for his own drug use.  The charge concerns possession of 25 ecstasy tablets with intent to supply.  The defendant also drove without a licence and insurance on another occasion. 

2.        The Crown suggested a starting point of 7 years, and we think that is correct.  Your advocate has put forward a strong case and submits that we should take the exceptional case of imposing a non-custodial sentence.  She relies upon the guilty plea, on your youth - you were 19 at the time and you are now just 20;  she has also referred to the fact that you have no previous drug convictions and only minor motoring offences.

3.        Most importantly she relies upon the efforts you have made to turn your life around since arrest.  She points out that you were in bad company previously and that you had a real ecstasy problem, but that since July, you have stopped taking drugs altogether.  You are supported by your family and you have been working hard.  Indeed we have seen a reference to that effect.  She has also asked us to rely upon the information in the reports and in the other papers before us.  We take all that into account.

4.        We have to say that those who sell Class A drugs normally go to prison but we have been persuaded by your advocate that this is an exceptional case.  You should consider yourself extremely lucky.  The only thing that has really tipped the balance is the fact that you have, of your own volition, stopped taking drugs and this has been confirmed by the drug and alcohol report, and the urine samples, and therefore, you have dealt with your drug problem yourself.  In the circumstances, we really do not think it necessary to send you to prison when you seem to have dealt with the underlying cause of your offending.

5.        We are, therefore, not going to send you to youth detention, but you must realise that this is a chance.  If you do not take advantage of the chance we are giving you, you will be brought back and in those circumstances youth detention is likely to be the only outcome.

6.        The sentence of the Court is as follows; on count 1, a fine of £200, which you must pay by the 31^st January, 2003; we disqualify you from driving for 3 months.  On count 2, community service 90 hours and disqualification for 1 year.  On count 3, a 12 months' probation order, we also order you to do community service of 240 hours and we state that the alternative sentence we had in mind was one of 2 years' imprisonment.  We think that that would have been the correct sentence to make full allowance for all the powerful mitigation to which we have referred.  On count 5 we impose a community service order of 70 hours, all of those community services are to be concurrent.  In other words, you have to undertake a total of 240 hours community service, you will be on probation for 12 months, and are fined £200; and you are disqualified from driving for a year.  If you do not pay the fine by the 31^st January, 2003, you will go to prison for 1 month.  We order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. [2001] JLR 626.

A.G. -v- Boden (14^th May, 2002) Jersey Unreported: [2002/98].