Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC079

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26th May 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Mohamed Abdul Rahman

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

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

An envelope containing 2.61 grams of heroin was intercepted by Customs Officers.  It was replaced with a dummy envelope which was then delivered to the stated address on the envelope.  Customs Officers kept observation on the address and Rahman turned up and collected the envelope.  He was arrested.  Searches were undertaken at Rahman's former address being the address to which the envelope had been addressed and his current address and paraphernalia relating to drug abuse were found at both addresses.  Rahman in interview admitted that he was a heroin addict and that the paraphernalia all belonged to him.  He admitted that he asked someone in England to post to him a quantity of heroin for which he paid £100.  He would not identify the sender of the envelope.  He described his habit as approximately half a gram a day.  Upon analysis the drugs were found to weigh a total 2.61 grams consisting of 50% by weight of diamorphine.

The Crown took as a starting point a sentence of four years' imprisonment.

Details of Mitigation:

The Defendant had resumed his use of heroin approximately four months after his release from a sentence of five years' imprisonment served for possession with intent to supply 49.38 grams of heroin.  See (JRC 2002/165).  The Crown accepted that this was an importation for personal use.  From his record he had little respect for the Court or previous non-custodial orders imposed.  The Crown gave him credit for his guilty plea, albeit he was caught red-handed.  He was fully co-operative and there were signs that despite his bad record for drug offences he was recognising the need to remain drug-free because of the effect that it was having upon his daughter.  Despite the mitigation, the Crown felt that were was no alternative but for a custodial sentence.

The defence did not dispute the facts nor the application of the starting point.  In terms of mitigation it relied upon his guilty plea and his level of co-operation.  Emphasis was placed on the fact that he was now drug-free and had a desire to remain drug-free so as to build a relationship with his 5½ year-old daughter who he wished to care for because the mother was also in custody at the present time.  He had the offer of employment which would allow him to care for his daughter for a large part of the day and the mother's family would also assist.  He was full of regret for the offence and for the time that he had wasted in terms of being away from his daughter and he was now eager to get away from heroin.   It was suggested that he was motivated to overcome his heroin addiction.  In this respect the recommendation of the Social Enquiry Report for a non-custodial sentence would be the appropriate sentence to achieve this.  He had also spent the equivalent of 5½ months on remand.

Previous Convictions:

He had a total of six convictions for nine offences of which seven were drug offences.  The other two offences were for destruction/refusing to obey the police.

Conclusions:

The Crown sought the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Defendant who was a heroin addict had imported 2.6 grams of heroin.  The Crown had accepted that it had been imported for personal use.  This was four months after he had completed a 5 year prison sentence.  He had reverted to heroin usage shortly after his release from prison.  Evidence of his heroin abuse had been found at his previous and his current address.  The Court viewed that as a serious aggravating factor as that home had been shared with his 5 year-old daughter.  He had a bad record and he had not been good at complying with non-custodial sentences in the past.  He had maintained a close relationship with his daughter whilst he had been in prison and he was of medium to high risk of re-offending.  In mitigation he had his guilty plea and he was co-operative.  He had served the equivalent of 5½ months in custody.

Accordingly to the Probation Officer the Defendant was now motivated to overcome his addition and he had detoxed whilst in prison.  The Crown's Conclusions were appropriate and he deserved to go to prison.  The Crown Advocate's Conclusions were correct.  However, on balance, albeit with hesitation, the Court was willing to take a risk and to place him on probation on the usual conditions and the condition that he attends the Alcohol and Drugs Service.  The Court had been advised by the Probation Officer that he was motivated to change and the Court was prepared to take that at face value.  He was advised that if he had a relapse then he would go back to Prison.  The Court was deeply concerned that if he had not change his life-style and that both parents were abusing heroin, the Court was not prepared to see the daughter brought up in those circumstances.  The Court expressed the hope that Rahman would take advantage of the opportunity being given to him.

An order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs was made.

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

Advocate R. C. L. Juste for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant is a heroin addict who is to be sentenced for the importation of 2.6 grams of heroin.  The Crown accepts that it was imported for personal use.  The offence was committed four months or so after his release from prison after serving a 5 year sentence for possession of heroin with intent to supply.  But his offending began sooner than that.

2.        Rahman has candidly admitted that he went down hill shortly after his release from prison.  There was evidence of drug abuse in the form of spoons, syringes, scales and silver foil in his flat at the time of his arrest. 

3.        It is a seriously aggravating feature that the defendant's five year old daughter was living in the flat at the time.  He has a bad record and his response to previous community based sanctions has not been good.  Rahman claims that his relationship with his daughter is important to him.  He is assessed by the Probation Officer as being at medium to high risk of re-offending.

4.        In mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty to the indictment and was co-operative with the investigating officers.  He has served the equivalent of a 5½ months' sentence on remand.  The Probation Officer tells us that Rahman is now motivated to address the problem of his heroin addiction.  He has detoxed from heroin in prison and when he was seen by the Head of the Drug and Alcohol Service he was free from heroin when tested.

5.        The Court appreciates, and Rahman you must appreciate too, that you deserve to go to prison.  You understand very well the consequences of continuing to be involved in heroin.  The Crown Advocate's conclusions were entirely correct.

6.        The Court, however, on balance and with a great deal of hesitation is going to take a risk.  It is going to place you on probation subject to all the usual conditions, and to the further condition that you attend on the Drug and Alcohol Service and continue to work with that service to overcome your heroin addition.  We are doing this because we are advised by the Probation Officer that you are motivated to change.  We are taking that advice at face value and we hope that you are, indeed wanting to change your way of life.

7.        I have to warn you, in no uncertain terms, that if you relapse into the use of heroin not only will you go back to prison but you will also be at very grave risk of losing your relationship with you daughter.  The Court is deeply concerned that this child was being brought up in circumstances where her parents were both involved in abusing heroin and we are not prepared to see that continue.

8.        We therefore are going to place you on probation for a period of 18 months subject to all the usual conditions which are that you will live and work as directed by your Probation Officer and further you will attend the Drug and Alcohol Service when required to do so.  We hope you will make a success of it.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

No Authorities