Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC064

ROYAL COURT

(Superior Number)

(exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon it

 by Article 22 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961)

5^th April, 2004

Lesley Barbara WHITEHOUSE

-v-

The Attorney General

Application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, to follow consecutively a sentence of 5½ years' imprisonment passed by the Superior Number of the Royal Court on 28th February, 2002 [2002/50] and varied by the Court of Appeal on 18th July, 2002 [2002/134]., the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment passed on 7th November, 2003, by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to:

Count 1 of the indictment was withdrawn.

The application for leave to appeal placed directly before the plenary Court, without first being submitted to a Single Judge for determination.

Advocate M.L. Preston for the Appellant;

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

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Lesley Barbara Whitehouse applies for leave to appeal against a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment imposed on 7^th November 2003, following her guilty plea on a single count of possession of heroin with intent to supply.  The facts were, in brief, that the Applicant was serving a five year sentence for different drugs offences.  On 30^th July 2003 she was allowed out of prison on day release.  On her return she was found in possession of 375 milligrams of heroin with a street value of approximately £200.  The heroin was to be supplied to her son who was in custody on remand for serious drugs offences.  The sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment was ordered to run consecutively to the five year sentence which she was serving. 

2.        Mr Preston, for the Applicant, submits that the sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, having regard to sentences imposed in other cases for comparable offences and having regard to the considerable mitigation available to her. 

3.        We have looked carefully at all the cases drawn to our attention by counsel but we will not refer to them in any detail because, with the exception, perhaps, of AG -v- Cunningham [2001] JLR N15, none of them is a guideline case.  Suffice it to say that the Jersey cases show that sentences in the region of twelve months' imprisonment have been imposed for bringing or attempting to bring into the prison class B drugs in relatively small quantities.  In AG -v- Wakeham [4^th February 2000] Jersey Unreported; [2000/216] a sentence of ten months' imprisonment was imposed on a disabled prisoner who brought back to the prison, after day release, fifty-five grams of cannabis and four grams of cocaine, which is a class A drug.  In AG -v- Harrison [15^th June 2001] Jersey Unreported; [2001/136] the Court sentenced a prisoner who brought into the prison 16 milligrams of heroin to Community Service as an act of mercy but indicated that eighteen months' imprisonment would otherwise have been the proper sentence.  In Cunningham, the Court, on a guilty plea, indicated that twelve months' imprisonment was the minimum that could be expected for bringing class B drugs into the prison with intent to supply. 

4.        Mr Belhomme, for the Attorney General, drew a number of English cases to our attention.  Again we will not refer to them in any detail.  In broad terms, however, the English Courts have taken a distinctly harder approach and imposed longer custodial sentences for this type of offence.  We suspect that the reason for this is that drug abuse in English prisons is more widespread than in Jersey and a deterrent approach is accordingly adopted in that jurisdiction.  It may be, however, that in some cases involving the taking of drugs into La Moye prison, defendants in Jersey have been too leniently treated.

5.        The first point that we wish to make is that the Superior Number will only interfere with a sentence imposed by the lower court if it is satisfied that the sentence is manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in principle.  This approach has long been adopted by the courts in this jurisdiction.

6.        The second point to be underlined is that bringing drugs into the prison, especially where there is an intent to supply, is a very serious offence.  Trading in drugs inside the prison undermines the discipline which all prisoners must accept.  The problems created by the demand for and supply of drugs, especially class A drugs, in the environment of the prison are obvious.  The corruption of relationships and the damage to training programmes are but examples. 

7.        We want to make it clear to those inside the prison and those on the outside that the position with intent to supply, or the supply of drugs by or for prisoners will be severely punished.  Each case must of course be treated on its individual merits but we endorse the comment of the Deputy Bailiff in AG -v- Cunningham, that a sentence of at least twelve months' imprisonment on a guilty plea should be expected for such offences where a class B drug is involved.  The expectation in the case of class A drugs should be a sentence of at least eighteen months' imprisonment.

8.        This Applicant was given a number of significant privileges by the prison authorities at a relatively early stage of her sentence.  She broke the trust that was placed in her and brought heroin into the prison.  She expected that it would be used by her son, but it was equally possible that some of it might have found its way into the hands of other prisoners.  This was the second occasion on which the applicant was found in possession of heroin with intent to supply, ostensibly to help her son.

9.        The Applicant has available to her a number of mitigating circumstances which engender some sympathy in the minds of the Court.  Nonetheless, in our judgment there was nothing excessive, let alone manifestly excessive, about the sentence imposed on this Applicant.  The application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.

Authorities

AG -v- Wakeham [4^th February 2000] Jersey Unreported; [2000/216].

AG -v- Corvel [2^nd March 2001] Jersey Unreported; [2001/55].

AG -v- Harrison [2001] JLR N32.

AG -v- Harrison [15^th June 2001] Jersey Unreported; [2001/136].

AG -v- Sheldrake [2003] JRC 166.

AG -v- Cunningham [2001] JLR N15.

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

R -v- Prince [1995] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 335.

R -v- Hamilton [2001] Cr. App. R. (S) 1991.

R -v- Slater [1998] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 485.

R -v Cowap [2001] 1. Cr. App. R. (S) 284.

R -v- Young [2000] Cr. App. R. (S) 248.