Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC051

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

16^th March, 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Nuno Ferreira Conde

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 30^th January, 2004, following a guilty plea entered on 28^th November, 2003 to:

 

1 count of:	possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:
	Count 1: cannabis.
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: ecstasy.

 

Age:     25.

 

Details of Offence:

Drug Squad Officers executed a search of Defendant's home.  A police officer asked the defendant if he had any controlled drugs on the premises, to which he immediately replied "Yes, I take them from him ...... tablets, lots of tablets, I take them from his room.  He directed the officers to a wardrobe where five plastic coin bags, each containing approximately 100 white tablets, and a further bag containing one white tablet, were found.  The defendant then told the officer there was another bag and on looking again, a further bag was found containing 49 ecstasy tablets together with a bag containing a single tablet.  In total 551 tablets were found.  The defendant then volunteered that some cannabis was hidden behind a picture.  551 ecstasy tablets had an overall street value of £5,510.00; wholesale between £3,306 and £4,408.  1.93 grams of cannabis, a personal amount, was worth approximately £10.  At interview the defendant fully admitted to possession of the tablets with intent to supply them to a third party.  He said he had been told by his friend, whom he named to police, and who had recently been arrested, to go to his home address and collect an unspecified amount of tablets hidden under the kitchen sink.  He said he had done so and had removed the tablets and taken them to his home address, where he hid them and waited for further instructions.  He fully admitted possession of the cannabis, saying he smoked one or two joints a day.  He also admitted to occasional use of ecstasy.  After his question and answer interview, the defendant made a statement to the police, again named his supplier, and gave further details of his rôle.  He indicated he was willing to give evidence against his supplier.  However, the crown later decided there was inadequate evidence to proceed against he supplier.  Defendant pleaded guilty on indictment and had served equivalent sentence of 8 months 22 days on remand.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; extremely co-operative at arrest, interview and later statement; no previous convictions support of his girlfriend; regular employment and strong work ethic; remorse; low risk of re-offending; references, some of which described him as naïve.  His first experience of imprisonment and detained at the VPU.  Undertaking various courses whilst imprisoned.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	£100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment, in default of payment.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment.  (8 years' starting point)

Deportation recommended

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	2½ years' imprisonment ; concurrent. (8 years' starting point)

No recommendation for deportation.

 

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. Richardson for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You agreed to act as a minder and to look after 551 ecstasy tablets after the owner had been arrested.  He clearly trusted you enough to ask you to do that.  The Crown has suggested a starting point of 8 years which is the bottom of the applicable Rimmer bracket and we agree with that and it is has not been opposed by your counsel. 

2.        In mitigation we take into account that you pleaded guilty at an early stage.  You have no previous convictions, you have a good work record since you have come to Jersey and we have seen the references which have been handed up.  You are aged 25 and you have the support of your girlfriend who is with you in Court today. 

3.        There is one other important piece of mitigation.  The moment you were arrested you gave information about the person who owned these drugs and who asked you to look after them and you also indicated that you were willing to give evidence against him and you gave a statement to the Police.  It is not your fault that the Crown decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute that person for this particular offence, albeit that he has been dealt with this morning for other offences.

4.        The Court has repeatedly said that where persons give assistance of the nature that you have given and are willing to acknowledge it in open court, a substantial additional discount will be allowed and the Court is unanimous in its view that the Crown has not given sufficient weight for that point in this case.  All the Jurats are agreed that the correct deduction to reflect this assistance is an additional two years.  However, there is a division in the Court as to what the correct deduction is for the other mitigation.

5.        Two of the Jurats feel that an adequate deduction for the guilty plea and other mitigation would be three years.  In other words they would have imposed a sentence of 5 years in the absence of the special co-operation.  The other four Jurats conclude that the correct sentence, simply taking into account the guilty plea and other mitigation, is 4½ years.  In other words they would allow 3½ years off the starting point.  Therefore with the additional deduction of 2 years to reflect the public acknowledgement of co-operation the sentence of the Court is as follows:  on count 2, 2½ years; on count 1, 1 month, concurrent making a total of 2½ years.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

6.        We turn then to the deportation.  Having considered the matter the Court has agreed in this case that it will not make a recommendation for deportation, but let me give you a very strict warning.  If you re-offend to any serious degree when you come out of prison, then it would seem inevitable that you would be deported.

Authorities

Bonnar and Noon -v- A.G. [2001]JLR626.

A.G. -v- Akehurst (29^th July, 1996) Jersey Unreported; [1996/142].

Bray -v- A.G. (27^th January, 2000) Jersey Unreported' [2000/16].

A.G. -v- Wootton [2003]JRC034.