Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC166

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

18^th September, 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Rebekah Rachael Luscombe Sheldrake

 

 

1 count of:

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

 

[Count 1 of the Indictment was not proceeded with].

 

Age:     21

 

Plea:    Guilty   

 

Details of Offence:

Acting on intelligence officers of the Drugs Squad approached Sheldrake shortly after her arrival in the grounds of La Moye Prison.  She was found to have a small cling-film wrap concealed under her tongue.  This was later found to contain 2 packages - the first comprised 758 mg of heroin and the second 801 mg of ascorbic acid not controlled but a vehicle used to aid the absorption of heroin.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas (considered inevitable in the circumstances).  Remorse.  Full credit for youth.  Drug and alcohol report described accused as emotionally immature, naïve for her age and vulnerable to exploitation by drug users.  Girlfriend of serving prisoner (also a heroin addict).  Claimed she has been approached on arrival at the Prison by a known criminal and told the package was "for the boys inside".  Worried for the safety of her boyfriend (a serving prisoner) if she refused to take in the drugs.  Spur of the moment offence not committed for personal gain.  Sad background.  Depressed.  Favourite uncle (an alcoholic) had committed suicide.  Whilst previously using heroin with her boyfriend (an addict) they had both fall seriously ill requiring admission to A and E.  Much support from her family (who had previously helped her to detox).

 

 

Previous Convictions:

Treated as a person good character.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 2:

2 years, 3 months' imprisonment

Crown proceeded on the basis that the Rimmer guidelines were of no application.  Accordingly, no starting point defined.  Crown treated the case as one involving possession, with intent to supply, a small non commercial amount of Class A drugs, aggravated by the fact that the intended supply was to an inmate of the Prison.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 2:

12 months' imprisonment.

 

An attempt to smuggle drugs to a serving prisoner is a serious offence.  Availability of heroin in the Prison can cause havoc.  Whilst the Court had sympathy for Sheldrake's family who had supported and cherished her she had known what she was doing.  The Court accepted Sheldrake's explanation - however implausible - that she had been approached 'out of the blue' by a man as she arrived at the Prison and had been told to secrete the drugs under her tongue.  She had not, however, been prepared to name her supplier.  Nevertheless, taking into account all available mitigation the Court felt able to reduce the conclusions substantially.

 

A.J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Hopwood for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has pleaded guilty to possession, with intent to supply, of 758 milligrams of heroin valued at between three and four hundred pounds on the street.  She was caught with the heroin in her mouth at La Moye Prison.  She intended to deliver it to another prisoner.

2.        Supplying or attempting to supply drugs to a prisoner is a very serious offence; much more serious than supplying drugs generally.  For obvious reasons the availability of heroin inside the prison system can cause havoc.  A custodial sentence is almost inevitable.

3.        We have listened to a most eloquent address in mitigation from defence counsel and we have no doubt that everything he has said about the defendant and her anxiety and her wish to reform herself is correct.  We have the greatest sympathy for the defendant's family, who have supported and cherished her far beyond what she is entitled to expect.

4.        At the end of the day, however, the defendant knew exactly what she was doing.  We accept the explanation as to how it came about, implausible as it appears, and sentence her on that basis.  But she had a choice and she chose the wrong path.  Subsequently she did not identify the man who apparently led her into this offence.

5.        We have to make it clear that those who smuggle, or attempt to smuggle, drugs into the prison, will receive severe punishment.  Miss Sheldrake, we have taken account of everything that your counsel has so ably said on your behalf and we are going to reduce the conclusions substantially on account of those mitigating factors, but you have to be punished for what you did and we are going to sentence you to 12 months' imprisonment for the offence to which you have pleaded guilty.

Authorities

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v- Attorney General [2001] JLR373

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2nd Ed'n): Drugs in Prison (paragraphs 151 to 163)

James Peter Prince (1996) Cr App R (S) (Vol 1) 335

Quentin John Slater (1998) Cr App R (S) 415

Linda Kelly Hamilton (2000) 1 Cr App R (S) 91

Tracey Cowap (2000) 1 Cr App R (S) 284

Susan Young (2000) Cr App R (S) 248

Attorney General -v- Harrison (2001) JLR N32

Rimmer & Ors-v-AG [2001]JLR 373.