Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC148

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

31^st August 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Nicholas John Melville

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 2^nd July, 2004, following a Guilty plea to Count 1, entered on 16^th April and conviction on 2^nd June, 2004, by the Inferior Number en police correctionnelle, on a Not Guilty plea to Count 2; as set out below:

 

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.

 

 

Age:     39.

 

 

Details of Offence:

Melville was detained in the Royal Square in the early evening and found in possession of 5.80 grams of heroin divided into 5 bags together with a number of syringes.  He also had 2 separate bundles of £200 in cash found in separate pockets.  He claimed that the heroin was for personal use.  He claimed that the money in his possession was his wages but a statement taken from his employer indicated that the denominations of the notes in Melville's possession were different to the denominations of the notes given to him by his employer.  It was the Crown's contention that he 2 separate bundles of £200 were the proceeds of the sale of 2 gram amounts of heroin sold by Melville earlier in the evening and that his comment upon detention to the effect that he had 8 grams was entirely consistent with the evidence.  Melville gave evidence on his own behalf at trial but was convicted by the Inferior Number.

The Crown took as its starting point a sentence of 7½ years' imprisonment.  The Crown categorised Melville as a street dealer dealing in gram amounts and the heroin found in Melville's possession had a street value of between £1,740 and £2,610.  The wholesale value was £870 to £1,160.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown contended that Melville had little mitigation available to him.  He did not have the benefit of a guilty plea to Count 2 and therefore did not have the benefit of the substantial mitigation that such a plea would have provided.  Nor did he have the advantage of good character but it was acknowledged that his previous record was somewhat dated and significantly less serious than his current offending.  He was a mature man and therefore did not have the benefit of youth and it appeared from the 'reports produced that he did not accept his guilt despite the finding of the Inferior Number and therefore does not have the benefit of remorse.  In the Crown's view there was nothing which could be properly described as exceptional or significant mitigation from the Reports or reference provided by the defence.

The defence did not challenge the starting pint of 7½ years but contended that a 1 year deduction as suggested by the Crown did not properly represent the available mitigation.  The defence emphasised his background and health problems that he experienced which led to firstly his abusing alcohol and then eventually his addiction to heroin to overcome his depression.  He came from a close knit family and he was in particular close to his mother and grandmother.  He had a lack of significant convictions which were dated and were for insignificant matters.  He had a good work record.  Despite his long term addiction he had not committed acquisitive offences to fund the habit.  He was viewing custody in a positive vein in that he had de-toxed in prison and wanted to remain drug free and to make something of his life.

 

Previous Convictions:

One offence of possession of cannabis resin and three offences for public order matters.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6½ years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  7½ years).

£400 confiscation order.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

The Court having noted that the defence did not contest the starting point of 7½ years' imprisonment sought by the Crown agreed that it was the correct starting point on the facts of this case.  The Court had regard to the available mitigation and noted that whilst he did not have a good record the offences were committed over 20 years ago and this was not a significant factor.  He did not have the benefit of a guilty plea or remorse and the long and short of it was that Melville was a street dealer.  The Court took into account that he was an addict and that he had worked consistently and that he had not resorted to acquisitive crime to fund his habit.  It was noted that the offences were committed whilst he was trying to overcome his addiction although not successfully.  The Court has had careful regard to everything said by the defence but concluded that the Crown had made an appropriate allowance for the mitigation.

 

 

 

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.E. Fitz for the Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced for the possession with intent to supply of heroin found in his possession in the Royal Square in February this year.  When arrested he was found to be in possession of 5 plastic bags and cash in the sum of £429.00.  The cash was divided into two bundles of £200 and a further bundle being the balance of £29, each in a separate pocket.  He had been observed shortly before his arrest walking with another man in the vicinity but the police have been unable to identify that man.

2.        Melville denied intending to supply any of the heroin in his possession but after a trial that explanation was rejected by the Jurats and he was convicted.  5.8 grams of heroin were recovered with a street value of between £1,700 and £2,400.

3.        Applying the guidelines in A.G. -v- Rimmer & Ors [2001]JLR373 the Crown Advocate has suggested a starting point of 7½ years' imprisonment.  This suggestion has not been contested by defence counsel and we agree that that starting point is correct.

4.        In mitigation, Melville does not have a good record but his convictions were some time ago and we do not regard them as a significant factor.  There is, of course, no mitigation for a guilty plea, nor for the remorse which such a plea sometimes indicates.  The long and the short of it is Melville was a street dealer in a pernicious and addictive drug.  Although he was not at the higher end of the scale, he was a dealer in a not insignificant way.

5.        We have taken account in mitigation of the fact that he is a heroin addict and the fact that he has during his adult life worked consistently as a carpenter and has not, we are informed by defence counsel, resorted to acquisitive crime to fund his habit. 

6.        We also take into account the fact that he was, at the time when this offence was committed, trying to cure his addiction, although obviously not successfully.

7.        [Addressing the defendant]  The Court has taken into account everything that your counsel has said, very eloquently, on your behalf.  We think, however, that the Crown Advocate has made as much allowance as he can for the mitigating circumstances.  The conclusions are accordingly granted and you are sentenced on Count 1: to 2 years' imprisonment, on count 2: to 6½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 6½ years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer & Ors -v- A.G. [2001]JLR373.