Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC206

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

13^th November 2003.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Sarah Jan Audoire

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 3^rd October, 2003, 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: diamorphine

 

Age:     27.

 

 

Details of Offence:

Internal concealment; 130 grams of heroin, street value between £39,000 and £58,000.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Recovering addict who had made great effort to stay off the drug; undertook the importation for cancellation of £2,500 debt left over from her past; threats made towards her; expert reports found that epilepsy resulting from a head injury suffered years previously left her prone to impulsive behaviour and poor judgment.

 

 

Previous Convictions:

Minor record for dishonesty and public order.  No previous drug offences.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point: 10 years).

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  Tragic case given previous effort of the accused; but no alternative to a custodial disposition.

 

C.E. Whelan, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You imported 130 grams of heroin with a street value of between £39,000 and £59,000.  You acted as a courier in exchange for forgiveness of an old drug debt of some £2,500.  The tragedy is that you were making real efforts to turn your life around.  You developed a serious heroin addiction over many years following the well trodden path, starting with cannabis, moving to speed, and then on to heroin.  However, in the early part of this year you went through your own "cold turkey" detox and you have been clear of heroin since then.  This is confirmed by the Drug and Alcohol Service and you are to be congratulated upon that.

2.        It is all the more unfortunate, therefore, that you agreed to undertake this drug run in August in order to clear the debt which had arisen before you gave up your drugs.  We need to consider the starting point, and the Crown has suggested 10 years which is at the bottom of the relevant bracket of the Rimmer -v- AG [2001] JLR 373 guidelines.  Miss Juste has submitted that this is one of those exceptional cases which enables us to go below those guidelines, but we find nothing exceptional in this case, and we, therefore, take a starting point of 10 years.

3.        In mitigation Miss Juste has put forward many matters.  She has referred to your guilty plea, and to your immediate co-operation and acceptance of what you had done.  She has referred to the fact that you are only 27, and that you have no previous drug offences.  Most importantly she has relied upon the matters in the various reports which we have seen, the Psychiatric, the Psychological, the Drug and Alcohol and Social Enquiry Reports.  All of these make it clear that you suffer from epilepsy as a result of the matters set out there, and that, in consequence of this, and other matters, you are gullible and naïve and are not always able to think through the consequences of your actions.  She also referred to the references which we have read carefully and also to your health - your epilepsy to which we have referred. 

4.        We have considered carefully whether this can be dealt with by way of a non-custodial penalty but we are quite clear that it cannot.  This was far too serious an offence to be dealt with in such a way notwithstanding the mitigation put forward.

5.        We have then had to consider what should be the correct prison sentence from the starting point of 10 years.  Miss Juste has said everything that could be said on your behalf and has said it very persuasively.  The fact is that you brought in this substantial amount of heroin which would have caused a lot of suffering to a large number of young people in Jersey and the Court has said repeatedly that in those cases, sentences must be passed to reflect the suffering which is caused.

6.        We have carefully considered all that your counsel said, but we think that the Crown's deduction of 5 years from the original starting point reflects the powerful mitigation available in your case and we think the Crown's conclusions are correct.  The sentence is, therefore, one of 5 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and the destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Gosselin (31^st March, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/55].

Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001] JLR373.