Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC174

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

30^th November 2006

Before     :

F. C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Brocq, Le Breton, Allo, Le Cornu and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Mohammed Shahnowaz

And

Victoria Lockett

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to:

Mohammed Shahnowaz

 

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) 1999. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to Article 8 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 2).

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.  Note re Count 2: Shahnowaz was charged with possession with intent to supply heroin; however the Crown accepted a guilty plea to the lesser offence of simple possession in respect of the 0.181g of heroin he was found in possession of at the time of arrest.  He therefore fell to be sentenced for that offence.

Details of Offence:

Shahnowaz arranged for Lockett to travel to London to collect and import 26.68g of heroin.  Provided Lockett with free heroin so she would become indebted to him.  Repeat drugs offender in breach of probation.

Details of Mitigation:

Little mitigation aside from guilty pleas.

Previous Convictions:

7 Drug Offences

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	5½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of Probation Order: 1 month, concurrent.

Total 5½ years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 7 years (drugs for personal use) but less deduction for the guilty plea given, therefore sentence 5½  on Count 1 and other conclusions granted re Count 2.

Victoria Lockett

 

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) 1999. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to Article 8 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 2).

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Lockett travelled to London where she purchased 26.68g of heroin.  On arrival back at the airport she was followed by Customs Officers.  Her flat was subsequently raided where she was found along with Shahnowaz and his girlfriend in possession of the drugs.  The drugs had a street value of £26,650.

Details of Mitigation:

Lockett had recently given birth to a baby boy.  She came off heroin whilst on remand at La Moye.  Felt indebted to Shahnowaz, the organiser of the importation, who had provided her with free heroin over the previous months.

Previous Convictions:

None - except 2 Parish Hall warnings.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 years' youth detention.
Count 2:	3 years' youth detention, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Counts 1 and 2:  2 years' probation, exceptional case, mercy.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

N. M. Santos-Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. J. MacRae for the Shahnowaz.

Advocate P. S. Landick for Lockett.

JUDGMENT

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Shahnowaz has a bad record going back to 2001, and all his offences relate to drugs.  He clearly organised the importation of these drugs into Jersey.  He knew the UK drug dealers and he used his influence over Miss Lockett to bring the drugs to Jersey, although she had apparently started on heroin while he was in prison, so he was not responsible for that.  He was a friend, we use the words advisedly, supplying her with free heroin.  Then, of course, the crunch came.  She was approached by him and feared, apparently, that he might stop her supply. 

2.        She went to England to collect the 26.68 grams of heroin.  When she arrived back in Jersey she was under close surveillance and the police eventually made the arrests.  As outlined to us by Crown Advocate Costa this was an extraordinary tale but because of the Court of Appeal's decision in Mortimer -v- AG Jersey Unreported [2003] JCA 203 we have to accept that the importation was for Shahnowaz' personal use.  There is nothing apparently to dispute this, but we agree entirely with Crown Advocate Costa that he says that it is only today, without any pre-warning, that Advocate MacRae has disputed the basis of the case against Shahnowaz.  Because of that we have to change the starting point.  This is a matter which the Court of Appeal has dealt with fully in Mortimer. 

3.        The Director of the Alcohol and Drugs Service states, inter alia, that Shahnowaz remains immersed in the illegal drug network.  He has, of course, been free of illicit drugs during his time in custody on remand.

4.        With Shahnowaz we take as our starting point 7 years, but we cannot see, however, closely we look at it that the mitigation particularly of one-third for the guilty plea (given somewhat late in the day) appropriate.  We can see aggravation in the use of a young girl for the purposes to which she has been put.  We are therefore minded, and we will, follow the conclusions of the Crown.

5.        Shahnowaz, on Count 1, you are sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment.  Count 2, 2 months' imprisonment, concurrent; and for the breach of the probation order 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 5½ years' imprisonment and we discharge the probation order and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

6.        Miss Lockett appears to be a special case.  We think that she is very vulnerable and she falls to be sentenced of course under the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 which states at paragraph (c), which is the only relevant paragraph:

"That the offence or the totality of the offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified".

7.        Now we have spent a long time on this matter but the Court is divided.  Three of the Jurats have opted for probation, two would have followed the conclusions of the Crown, but would have sentenced her to 2 years' youth custody.

8.        We are going to sentence you to probation for 2 years.  During this time, as it has been said by your Probation Officer, you will be expected to complete the core programme which aims to address problem solving, analysis of offending and its consequence, victim awareness and planning to stay out of trouble.  You will complete the "offending is not the only choice" programme, that is a 20 week programme, aimed at an in depth analysis of problem solving and evaluating the morality of decision making.  You will liaise with the Work Wise and Employment Department when you are ready to return to work, and there may be a referral to the mentor scheme with the aim of building your confidence and self esteem to structured leisure activities.  You will also, of course, be subject to a treatment order supervised by the Alcohol and Drugs Service as set out in Mr Gafoor's report.  I have to say that if you break this probation over two years then the prison sentence is inevitable.

Authorities

Mortimer -v- AG Jersey Unreported [2003] JCA 203.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.