Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC094

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

8^th July 2005

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

James Andrew Harris

 

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty plea:

 

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.

 

 

Age:     22.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Following Harris' arrival from Portsmouth by boat, customs officers attended his home two hours later.  He was taken to Elizabeth harbour and found to have concealed internally 6.09 grams of heroin with 88% purity.  The Crown accepted that it was for his personal use.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Youth.

Guilty plea.

 

Previous Convictions:

Un-co-operative during interview.

Numerous previous convictions, including theft, illegal entry, larceny, common assault, receiving stolen goods, and 9 drug related offences, sentenced for possession of heroin one week before the commission of this offence.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

 

T. Le Cocq, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The defendant imported 6 grams of heroin to feed his heroin addiction.  He has an appalling record including a number of convictions for possession of drugs. 

2.        In terms of starting points, we think the correct starting point for this amount of drugs in these circumstances is 4 years.

3.        Miss Juste has urged that we should proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.  She refers to the guilty plea, although the fact is the defendant did not offer any comment when first interviewed, and therefore cannot be said to have been co-operative.  She points to his youth, which is quite correct, he is only 22, and she has referred to the various reports, both the Social Enquiry Report, the Drug and Alcohol Service Report and the two reports which Miss Juste has put forward.

4.        It is quite clear that the defendant has a long standing heroin problem and there have already been many efforts to help him, including sending him to the Centre in Norfolk.  Yet so far they have been unsuccessful.  In view of all the matters which appear from the papers, we do not feel able to pursue a non-custodial route.

5.        The sentence of the Court is that from a starting point of 4 years, we think 2 years' is an adequate discount and, therefore, the sentence is one of 2 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

6.        We very much hope that you will maintain the progress you have started to make in prison because if you do not maintain that progress when you come out of prison you will get into trouble again and then you will go back and you will be spending increasing periods of your life in prison.  You have the ability and the talent to address these problems if you show enough determination, so we very hope that you will receive help in prison and that you will be given every assistance in trying to overcome your addiction.

Authorities

Finnigan -v- A.G. [2004] JRC077.

A.G. -v- Ferguson [2004]JRC162.

A.G. -v- Durkin, Bevis, Howard and Hartley [2004]JRC163.