Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC073

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

29^th April 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Shah Rekon Ali

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 2^nd April, 2004, 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:     23.

 

Details of Offence:

Defendant imported 27.82 grams of heroin, 41% by weight diamorphine.  He had been stopped by Customs Officers having arrived off a flight from Gatwick.  The heroin was concealed internally and detected following an X-ray examination at the Hospital.  During interview defendant candidly admitted he was going to be paid £1,000 for bringing the drugs into Jersey; he admitted using cannabis, smoking heroin and from time to time using crack cocaine.  He had been given the drugs in London where the drugs would have had a wholesale value of £900.  He had been a heroin addict fro five years and payment would have reduced his debts.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, although plea inevitable.  Youth age 23.  Good character; had served 3 months 21 days on remand.  Social Enquiry Report and Alcohol and Drugs Report referred to him as naïve and immature with limited intellectual abilities.  Had lived in Jersey 2 years.  Jersey-born girlfriend with whom he had a baby.  Employment references. Named his supplier and also the person for whom the drugs were destined during his Questions and Answers.  Took further step of making a full statement, in the knowledge that he could be required to give evidence.  Allowed the fact of his co-operation to be made known in open court.

 

Previous Convictions:

One minor conviction for refusing to obey.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

4 years' imprisonment; (starting point: 8 years).

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Eight year starting point.  Had the defendant not named his supplier, Court indicated the appropriate sentence would have been 5 years' imprisonment.  However, police had accepted Defendant's information as genuine and Court had repeatedly said that substantial discount will be given to those who provide such assistance.  Reduced sentence by further 2 years.  Total of 3 years' imprisonment, forfeiture of drugs and nominal Confiscation Order.

 

 

 

Mrs S Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You imported just under 28 grams of heroin concealed internally.  You did this for a fee of £1,000 to help pay off your debts.  You have a heroin dependency which is of some years standing.

2.        The Crown has suggested a starting point of 8 years.  This is at the bottom of the applicable bracket in Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001]JLR373, and we agree that is the correct starting point.

3.        In mitigation you have pleaded guilty, although it was concealed internally and therefore a plea was inevitable.  You have only one very minor conviction.  You have youth on your side you are only 23.  We note the intention you have expressed in prison to extricate yourself from the drug scene and the efforts you are making there.  We have also read the letters from you and your girl friend/partner and we, of course, note the effect that prison will have on her and the child, but that is an inevitable consequence.

4.        We note from the Social Enquiry Report that you are at low risk of re-offending and you are described as being naïve and immature in the Drug and Alcohol Report.

5.        If the mitigation had stopped there we would have thought the correct sentence was one of 5 years' imprisonment, but there is one additional matter which your counsel has very strongly prayed in aid; you named the supplier when you were interviewed.  Furthermore you went beyond that and gave a witness statement with considerable detail, indicating a willingness, therefore, to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution.  The police accept that the information which you gave is genuine, and that is absolutely fundamental.  If the police do not assess the information as being genuine the Court will give no discount for giving such information because it is easy for defendants to provide any number of names which mean nothing.  In this case the police accept that the information is genuine and furthermore you have agreed to acknowledge this in open court.

6.        The Court has repeatedly said that it will give a substantial additional discount for such cases and we think an additional discount of 2 years in this case is appropriate.  That means that the sentence of the Court is one of 3 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

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

Mortimore -v- AG [2003]JCA203.

AG -v- Conde [2004]JRC051.

Bray -v- AG (27^th January, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/16].