Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC040

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21^st February 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Suna Miah;

Julie Ann Lihou;

Brendan Martin Le Marchand;

Anne Marie de Ste George.

 

Suna Miah

 

1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 2: Diamorphine.
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 3: diamorphine.

 

[On 31^st January, 2003, the Crown accepted a not guilty plea to count 1 of the Indictment].

Age:     28.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

On 15^th July, 2002, police officers from the Drugs Squad observed Le Marchand, together with husband and wife Fernando and Nicolene Da Conceicao, enter the flat of Miah and Lihou.  Just less than an hour later, as Fernando Da Conceicao was opening the front door to leave the flat, the officers took the opportunity to enter the flat and execute a warrant at the premises.

Miah, Lihou and Le Marchand were all arrested.  A search of the lounge revealed two plastic bags containing 558 milligrams and 669 milligrams of heroin, having a total street value of between £360 and £550 and a wholesale value of £230.  On the table in the lounge were a set of electronic scales that showed traces of heroin, some clingfilm and some plastic bags.  Two further bags of heroin, weighing 1.81 grams and 255 milligrams respectively and having a total street value of between £576 and £914 and a wholesale value of £230, were found when Miah was searched.  The total weight of heroin Miah admitted possessing was 3.292 grams.

Fernando Da Conceicao was also detained and searched by the officers.  In his hat was found a clingfilm wrap containing 743 milligrams of heroin, which formed part of a one gram amount that Miah admitted having supplied to him.  Subsequently, both Da Conceicaos were charged with being in possession of a personal amount of heroin and were dealt with separately.

While being arrested, Le Marchand indicated that there were also drugs in a case at his home address, where he lived with De Ste George.  A few hours later, officers attended that residence.  The case was located and inside the police found two balls of heroin wrapped in clingfilm. These were seized and De Ste George was arrested.  The drugs found weighed 9.41 grams, having a combined street value of between £2,823 and £4,234 and a wholesale value of £1,882.

Notably, each defendant pleaded guilty on a particular set of facts, which were accepted by the Crown and used as the basis of sentencing.  These are as follows:

Miah admitted that he supplied to Da Conceicao one gram of the five grams of heroin given to him by Le Marchand, some of which was used by the Da Conceicaos prior to the police raid.  He maintained that he was going to keep the remaining 3.292 grams for his personal consumption.

Lihou admitted that she had been aware that her flat had been used for the supply of heroin both on this and on previous occasions.  She denied that she had given her express consent.

Le Marchand admitted that the 9.41 grams of heroin found at his address belonged to him.  He stated that of this amount, it was his intention to keep half for his personal use and to give the other half to Miah to sell for him.  In addition, he admitted taking approximately 5 grams of heroin to Miah for its onward sale.

De Ste George admitted to looking after the same 9.41 grams of heroin for an unnamed third party.  She stated that she was able to keep half of that amount of the drug for her personal use.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Co-operation with police; late guilty plea; wrote own indictment re Count 2; remorse; supply not for commercial gain.

 

Previous Convictions:

Appalling record including 15 previous drugs offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

Julie Ann Lihou

 

1 count of:

Being occupier of premises, permitting or suffering the supply or attempted supply of a controlled drug on those premises, contrary to Article 5 (c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 5: heroin.

 

[On 31^st January, 2003, the Crown accepted not guilty pleas to counts 1 and 4 of the Indictment].

 

Age:     24.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

See Suna Miah (above).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Late guilty plea; residual youth; disturbed childhood.

 

Previous Convictions:

Larceny; assault; various drugs offences between 1997 and 2001 (one of which was permitting premises to be used for production/supply/use of drugs).

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 5:

18 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 5:

Conclusions granted.

 

Brendan Martin Le Marchand

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 6: diamorphine.
1 count of:	Possession with intent to supply a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 7: diamorphine.
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 Count 8: diamorphine.

 

[On 21^st February, 2003, the Crown did not proceed with count 1 of the Indictment and it was left on the file].

 

Age:     22.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

See: Suna Miah (above).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea at early stage; remorse; youth; no previous drugs offences; supply not for commercial gain.

 

Previous Convictions:

One motoring offence.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 6:	2½ years' imprisonment.
Count 7:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	4 years imprisonment, concurrent

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 6:	2½ years' imprisonment.
Count 7:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Anne Marie de Ste George

 

1 count of:	Possession of controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 9: diamorphine.
1 count of:	Possession of controlled drug, with intent to supply contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 10: diamorphine.

 

[On 31^st January, 2003, the Crown accepted a not guilty plea to count 1 of the Indictment].

 

Age:     24.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

See Suna Miah (above).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Late guilty plea; residual youth; no previous offences; in some respects wrote her own indictment; difficult childhood; supply not for commercial gain.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 9:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 10:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 9:	3½ years' imprisonment.
Count 10:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Bell and Advocate P de C Mourant for S. Miah.

Advocate M.L. Preston for J. Lihou.

Advocate D.J. Benest for B.M. Le Marchand.

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for A.M. de Ste George.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        These defendants were all involved to a greater or lesser extent in the trafficking of heroin.  It has been said before but it is worth repeating that heroin is a destructive drug which causes degradation and misery to all those who become addicted to it.  The policy of this Court is to punish severely all who traffic in heroin not only because it is a very serious offence in itself but also to discourage others.

2.        Miah is to be sentenced for supplying 1 gram of heroin and for possession of a further 3 grams of heroin which he claimed was to be for his own use.  It is to be noted, however, that the flat occupied by Miah and Lihou also contained a set of scales impregnated with heroin, cling film, and plastic bags all of which give an indication of the extent to which Miah was involved in drug trafficking.  He has a bad record of previous convictions including 15 offences for infractions of drug legislation and of which one was for a drug trafficking offence.

3.        In mitigation, Miah pleaded guilty to the Indictment although late in the day.  Counsel put to us the submission that the supply was not for commercial gain and that the usual principles set out in the guideline judgments of the Court of Appeal did not apply.  We were referred to paragraph 139 of Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n).  We agree that the absence of significant profit is a material factor but there are other factors to be taken into consideration as well in determining where on the scale of gravity the defendant's offending is to be placed.  Miah is a man who has been deeply involved in illegal drug abuse for many years.  On the premises as we have stated were electronic scales impregnated with heroin together with cling film and plastic bags.  We have already referred to his record.

4.        We agree that the Crown Advocate correctly stated the starting point at 7 years.  We think that full weight has been given by the Crown Advocate to all the mitigating factors.  The conclusions are accordingly granted.  Miah, on count 2, you are sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment; on count 3, to 2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 4 years' imprisonment.

5.        Lihou allowed her flat to be used for the purposes of supplying drugs, although it is said that she did not consent to it in the sense that she permitted the supply to take place around her.  Defence counsel referred, as did the Crown Advocate, to Morgan & Shlandt -v- A.G. (24^th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001/88] and submitted that the facts in this case were not as serious as in the case of Shlandt who was eventually sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.  Counsel told us that her relationship with Miah was over and that she wanted to sever her contact with other drug users as well.  Lihou has three previous convictions for drug offences, including one previous conviction for the very offence for which she is being sentenced today.  She has three times breached probation orders.  The Court cannot accept that she was doing other than providing a safe haven for drug dealing with her eyes completely open.  We accept in mitigation that she has pleaded guilty to the indictment and we take account of her difficult and sad background which is set out very fully in the reports. 

6.        Lihou, we think that it is in your interests to serve a custodial sentence.  We think that the Crown Advocate has correctly balanced the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the conclusions are accordingly granted and you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

7.        We turn to Le Marchand who is aged 22 and states that he has been involved in taking illegal drugs since the age of 17.  He is to be sentenced for possession with intent to supply of approximately 5 grams of heroin and the simple possession for his own use of another 5 grams or so of heroin.  He also supplied Miah with another 5 grams of heroin or so.  The Crown Advocate took his starting point of 8 years and we agree that that is the appropriate figure. 

8.        In mitigation Le Marchand is to be treated as a first offender.  He has been described in the Drug and Alcohol Report as naïve and unsophisticated.  He pleaded guilty from an early stage in contrast with his co-accused.  He is also the youngest of the group.  We have felt able to give slightly more weight to the mitigating factors than was allowed by the Crown Advocate.  Le Marchand you are accordingly sentenced on count 6, to 2½ years' imprisonment; on count 7, to 3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent; on count 8, to 3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3½ years' imprisonment.

9.        de Ste George is aged 24 and has been involved with drugs since the age of 15, and addicted to heroin for the last 3 years.  She falls to be sentenced as does Le Marchand for possession with intent to supply of nearly 5 grams of heroin, and possession for her own use of another 5 grams or so of heroin.  The Crown Advocate took a starting point of 7 years and we agree again that that is the appropriate figure. 

10.      In terms of mitigation she is a first offender, but not quite as young nor naïve as Le Marchand.  Her guilty plea was not tendered at an early stage but only a week before trial.  We agree with the Crown Advocate that looking at the matter in the round, she is at the same level of culpability as Le Marchand.  We take into account all the matters urged upon us by defence counsel and we vary slightly the conclusions.  de Ste George, you will be sentenced on count 9, to 3½ years' imprisonment; on count 10, to 2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3½ years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

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

A.G. -v- Welsh (3rd February, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/21].

Morgan & Schlandt -v- A.G.(24^th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/88].

A.G. -v- Viveiros (19^th February, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/42].

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): para 139.