Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/49

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

28^th February 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Mary Angela County

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 25th January, 2002, following a guilty plea to:

 

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 (Jersey) Law 1999: Count 1: heroin

 

Age:     19.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

On 26^th November 2001, at approximately 12.07 hours, County, who had arrived at the States of Jersey Airport, St. Peter, on a flight from Dublin, was stopped by a Customs Officer.   She had a single ticket, few possessions and could provide no plausible explanation for her journey.   She was arrested and cautioned.   She subsequently admitted to Customs Officers that she was carrying drugs.   She subsequently removed from her vagina a package of powder wrapped in polythene.   Analysis showed this to be 6.06 grams of diamorphine (heroin) of an average purity of 66%, with a street value of between £1,800 and £2,700, and a wholesale price of between £900 and £1,200.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Her youth was a significant mitigating factor.   She was the mother of a 12-month old son who she had left behind in Ireland.   She was co-operative with Customs and Police officers.   She pleaded guilty from the outset.   She had no previous convictions.   She was a one-off carrier and was at a low level of involvement in the drugs trade.   She was not herself a drug user.   She had experienced a difficult upbringing in a poor area of Ireland where drugs were rife.   She had been physically abused by her ex-boyfriend.   She was threatened by Irish drug dealers in respect of her ex-boyfriend's drug debts.   Her motive for undertaking the drug run to Jersey was to clear her ex-boyfriend's drug debts and to stop her ex-boyfriend harassing her.   A psychological report and a letter of character reference showed that she was otherwise of good character, but that she was a naïve, immature and gullible person who was intimidated into the act of importing an illegal substance.   Literacy screening showed that she was functioning at the level of a seven year old.   She wrote a letter of remorse to the Court.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:            4 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

2 years Probation Order with 240 hours Community Service to be carried out in Ireland.

 

The Court accepted the Crown's submission that the correct starting point was seven years' imprisonment.   However, the mitigating circumstances meant that this was a wholly exceptional case which justified a departure from the Court's usual policy of imposing a custodial sentence.   The Court stated that if Community Service had not been imposed, the equivalent custodial sentence would have been two years' imprisonment.

The Court recommended a deportation order and that the Defendant be held in custody pending deportation.  The Court ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs. S.A. Pearmain for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant imported 6 grams of heroin concealed internally.   She was stopped at the airport and before an x-ray could be taken she admitted to the fact that she was carrying drugs.   It transpires that she had been persuaded to carry these drugs by drug dealers in Ireland to whom her boyfriend owed a debt.  

2.        The Crown have taken a starting point of 7 years in accordance with the guidelines in Rimmer, Lusk and Bade -v- A.G. (19^th July, 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/148],  and we accept that that is the correct starting point.   However, Mrs. Pearmain has put forward a powerful case in mitigation and contends that this is a truly exceptional case which would justify the Court departing from its normal policy of imposing a custodial sentence for such offences.   She refers to a number of matters.  First, she pointed out the extremely difficult background of this defendant.   We were shown a powerful letter from Father Shán, the parish priest, and we are satisfied from that and from the other information before us, including the Psychological Report and the Social Enquiry Report, that this defendant is exceptionally naïve, vulnerable  and easily manipulated.   Secondly, Mrs. Pearmain pointed out that despite these factors and despite the general climate in the area where she has been brought up she has no previous convictions and does not use drugs herself.   Thirdly, she referred to the fact that there is an ex-boyfriend who has abused her both physically and sexually on a number of occasions leading to complaints to the local police.   Fourthly, she points to the fact that that boyfriend had drug debts owed to drug dealers.   The dealers brought enormous pressure upon the defendant to undertake this drug run.  Finally, the boyfriend himself promised that if she were to do the run he would stop molesting her.   Foolishly she thought that if she did the run these matters would come to pass.   Nevertheless, we are quite satisfied that her motivation for what she did was a belief that she could clear the boyfriend's debts and dissuade him from continuing his abusive conduct towards her.

3.        Her naivety is shown by the fact that she arrived with a single ticket, with virtually no money, and with no apparent means of ever returning to Ireland where she has a one year old child who was being looked after, supposedly for the day, by her mother and sister.   Clearly the existence of a one year old child is a significant factor - as has been pointed out to us.  Were she to receive a custodial sentence it is unlikely that arrangements could be made in adequate time for the baby to be with her with the result that that crucial bonding which takes place in early years would be missing.

4.        She has pleaded guilty and we have also taken into account the other mitigation in the papers before us.   All in all we are satisfied that this is a wholly exceptional case which does enable us to depart from the Court's firm policy that those who import drugs on a commercial basis receive a custodial sentence.

5.        Stand up, please.   We are going to place you on probation for two years and we also, because it is a serious offence and you have to be punished, order that you carry out 240 hours community service and we understand from the Probation Report  that arrangements can be made for your probation order to be supervised and the community service to be carried out in Ireland.   The law requires us to state what the sentence of imprisonment would have been had we not imposed community service.   We accept the starting point but in light of the exceptional mitigation we think the correct sentence would have been one of two years imprisonment.

6.        Now, you have been extremely fortunate so we hope not to see you here again for a breach because should you fail to carry out the community service or should you fail to do what your Probation Officer says you will be arrested, brought back to Jersey, and as we have already said, the sentence which you might face then would be one of two years' imprisonment.   Do you understand?

7.        As to deportation we are satisfied that the defendant's continued presence in the island would be detrimental on the grounds of what she has done.   There are no family here, no other reason why there should not be a deportation order, accordingly we recommend deportation and make an order under paragraph 2.1 of Schedule 3 that she remain in detention pending the decision of the Lieutenant Governor on that matter.   We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade -v- AG (19^th July 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/148].

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