Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/50

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

28^th February 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Lesley Barbara Whitehouse

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 22^nd February, 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:     49.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The defendant imported 121.8 grams of heroin (41% purity) with an estimated street value of between £36,540 and £54,810 (wholesale value between £18,270 and £24,360).  The drug was concealed in her "bra".  During interview with Customs Officers the defendant explained that she had been approached by someone in Jersey she had met through her son (who lives in Jersey and at the time was a heroin addict).  This person asked the defendant if she came across to Jersey regularly to visit her son and if so whether she wanted to make some 'easy money'.  The defendant was visited by and received telephone calls on subsequent occasions from the same person at her home address in England and eventually agreed to import heroin into the Island.  Her reward for acting as a courier was £1,000 including the cost of her air fare.  No mention during initial interview with Customs and Excise of threats made to her and to members of her family by this individual.  The defendant was not a drug addict and decided to import heroin to Jersey notwithstanding the fact that she was familiar with the devastation the drug had brought to her son and daughter.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, co-operation with Customs and Excise, threats to members of her family, remorse, no previous drug convictions.   Defence counsel submitted that her age was a further mitigating factor (Crown submitted on the basis of English Authorities that no age related mitigation was available until accused attained the age of 60.) Issue not recorded by Court; carer for daughter and grandchild.

 

 

Previous Convictions:

In 1999 - False accounting (and 106 T.I.C's) for obtaining Income Support whilst working totalling £13,736.  As defendant was entitled to claim family credit, amount obtained illegally amounted to £3,590.

In 2000 - one count of shop lifting.

 

Conclusions:

7 years' imprisonment.  (11 year starting point).  Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

5 ½ years' imprisonment.  (10 year starting point). Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate Preston for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant imported 121 grams of heroin with a retail value of between £36,000 and £54,000 into Jersey concealed in her bra.   She was discovered by Customs Officers at the airport.  When interviewed she said that she had been approached by someone whom she had met through her son, who has had a drug problem.   She said that she was pestered by this man to bring some drugs across to Jersey.   She was told to think about it as it was easy money.   Eventually she says that she agreed for a reward of £1,000.   During her interview with the Customs she made no mention of any threats to her family.   However, when she was seen by the Probation Officer for the purposes of the preparation of a report she said that on the last occasion that this man had visited, he had said that he knew where her family lived, that he could make her life hell and that she could have no relations to visit in the future.   In other words he threatened her family.   The defendant's failure to mention a fact such as this when interviewed originally would normally make it difficult for the Court to place much credence on such evidence but the Crown has accepted that we should proceed on the basis that this threat was made and we do therefore proceed on that basis.

2.        The first matter is to take a starting point. The leading authority is now the case of Rimmer,Lusk and Bade -v- A.G. (19^th July, 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/148]; (2001) JLR 373 CofA. For amounts of 100 to 250 grams a starting point of between 10 and 13 years is recommended.   The Crown has suggested a starting point of 11 years.   But in our view, taking account of the nature of the defendant's role and the background to the circumstances in which she came to be involved we think that a starting point at the bottom of the band is correct; in other words 10 years.   Mr. Preston has urged that we should go below that and take a starting point of 9 years and he referred us to the facts of Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G.  (26^th October, 2001) Jersey Unreported, CofA; [2001/212], as an example of where that had been done.   We have considered that but in our judgment this is not one of those exceptional cases where we should go below the bottom of the appropriate band. 

3.        In mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty.   She has no previous conviction for drug offences although she does have some for dishonesty.   She has an essential role in looking after her parents.   She committed these offences only when the threat to her family was made.   Both of her children have had problems with drugs which in one way makes it all the more surprising that she should agree to bring in heroin with the degradation that that can cause to the lives of young people in Jersey.   Nevertheless, she is clearly remorseful, and most significantly, she has a daughter whose childhood was blighted by tragic events, which are set out in the reports, and which have left that daughter with some on-going problems.   The daughter has in turn had a granddaughter but it is clear that the defendant plays a key role in supporting both the daughter and the granddaughter.   It follows that any prison sentence is going to work harshly on the daughter and granddaughter.  

4.        Taking all these matters into account we think that the correct amount to deduct from the 125

5.         point is a period of 4 ½ years'. Stand up please.   The sentence of the Court on the sole count that you face is one of 5 ½ years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade -v- AG (19^th July 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/148]; (2001) JLR 373 CofA.

Bonnar & Noon (26^th October, 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/212].

AG -v- Moy (10^th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/07]