Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC200

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

7^th November, 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Lesley Barbara Whitehouse

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 1: diamorphine.
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[Count 1 was withdrawn].

 

Age:     50.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Accused (an inmate of La Moye Prison serving a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment for importation of heroin) returned to the prison following home leave carrying a cling-film wrap containing 387 milligrams of brown powder comprising heroin containing 60% by weight of diamorphine ('street' value £200.00 - 'wholesale' value £120.00) concealed in her trousers.  Having initially denied she was carrying anything she later produced the wrap to prison officers.  Accused claimed she had been given the drugs by a girl she did not know at a bus stop to bring into prison for her son (also a serving inmate).  Claimed she had told her son she did not want to smuggle drugs into prison as she had too much to lose.  When interviewed by police accused candidly admitted her guilt.  She said she did not use drugs of any sort.  When questioned in relation to the heroin found on her she elected to make "no comment" replies.  When asked whether the drugs were intended for her son the accused said she could not remember what she had said to prison officers.  Breach of trust placed in accused by prison authorities.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea (although considered by the Crown inevitable).  Accused apparently attempted to avoid being given the drugs later recovered from her.  Heavily influenced by her son for whom she had agreed to carry a previous consignment of drugs resulting in her term of imprisonment of five years.  Remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

Record of previous convictions including conviction before the Superior Number for importing heroin.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 2:

2½ years' imprisonment.

 

Crown proceeded on basis that the Rimmer guidelines of no assistance in a case of this sort which fell within a completely different category to that envisaged by Rimmer.  Accordingly, Crown did not define a starting point but instead proceeded on basis of the case involved the possession with intent to supply, a small non-commercial amount of Class A drug aggravated by the fact that the accused was a prison inmate temporarily entrusted with the privilege of release on home leave and that the intended supply was to another inmate.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 2:

18 months' imprisonment.

 

The sentence to follow consecutively a sentence of 5½ years' imprisonment passed by the Superior Number of the Royal Court on 28^th February, 2002 [2002/50] and varied by the Court of Appeal on 18^th July, 2002 [2002/134].

 

Court would take a strict view of anyone smuggling drugs into prison.  Sentences in such cases should include an element of deterrence.  Court would, however, always look at facts of case.

 

 

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

Advocate M.L. Preston for Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The Court has said before that it takes a strict view of anyone who tries to smuggle drugs into prison.  Sentences imposed in such cases must contain an element of deterrence.  We have been referred by the Crown Advocate to a number of English cases, namely Prince (1996) Cr. App. R. (S) 335; Slater (1998) Cr. App. R. (S) 415; Hamilton (2000) 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 91; Cowap (2000) 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 284; and Young  (2000) Cr. App. R. (S) 248 where sentences of between two and five years have been upheld for the taking of class A drugs into prison even where the personal mitigation has been very strong.

2.        In Jersey we have been referred to the cases of Cunningham [2001] JLR N15 and Harrison (15^th June, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/136] amongst others when the Court has endorsed the general approach of the English Courts that deterrent sentences are required because of the problem of the availability of drugs in prisons.  But we must always look at the facts of each case to see what is required.

3.        In this case Mr Preston has urged us to show leniency and to treat it as an exceptional case.  Not only do we have the immediate guilty plea, we have a number of other circumstances.  It is clear that this defendant cannot say no to her son for whom the drugs were taken in.  She had, until then, been an exemplary prisoner and is now clearly extremely remorseful that she betrayed the trust of the prison authorities.  Since this offence she has worked hard to regain it and is taking a number of courses in prison which we hope will help her.

4.        Similarly she is an important carer for her daughter and for her grandchildren and it was for the same reasons, no doubt, that the Court of Appeal was persuaded to reduce the sentence and we have no wish to prolong her time in prison unnecessarily. 

5.        But the fact remains that to bring in class A drugs is serious and has to be met by a sentence which reflects the seriousness of what is done.

6.        We feel that we can reduce the conclusions of the Crown.  The sentence of the Court is eighteen months' imprisonment to run consecutively to your existing sentence. 

7.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Whitehouse (28^th February, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/50].

Whitehouse -v- A.G. (18^th July, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/134].

Rimmer & Ors -v- A.G. [2001] JLR 373.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Edition): paras 151-163.

Prince (1996) Cr. App. R. (S) 335.

Slater (1998) Cr. App. R. (S) 415.

Hamilton (2000) 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 91.

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

Young  (2000) Cr. App. R. (S) 248.

A.G. -v- Cunningham [2001] JLR N15.

A.G. -v- Harrison (15^th June, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/136].

A.G. -v- Sheldrake [2003] JRC 166.

A.G. -v- Corvel (2^nd March, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/55].

A.G. -v- Wakeham (4^th February, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/21C].