Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC183

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th December 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Emmanuel Bisson

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

1count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Driving without a licence, contrary to Article 4 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956.  (Count 2).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948.  (Count3).
1 count of:	Falsification of an insurance disc, contrary to Article 18 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948.  (Count 4).
1 count of:	Wrongful use of an insurance disc, contrary to Article 18 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948.  (Count 5).
1 count of:	Falsification of a certificate of insurance, contrary to Article 18 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948.  (Count 6).
1 count of:	Wrongful use of a certificate of insurance, contrary to Article 18 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948.  (Count 7).
1 count of:	Permitting a person to use a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948.  (Count 8).
1 count of:	Permitting a person to use a motor vehicle with excessively tinted windows, contrary to Article 77 (3) (b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956.  (Count 9).

Age:  27

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The accused was stopped by police and found in possession of two small wraps of heroin (87 mg containing 17% by weight diamorphine).  During interview he admitted possessing the wraps but refused to name his supplier.  He said he had bought the drugs to get him through the weekend (Count 1).

Late one evening the accused was stopped by the police driving his girlfriend's car on the Esplanade.  A check revealed his provisional driving licence had expired.  He had previously been disqualified for a period of 12 months (and until the required test had been passed).  He had not yet taken the required test.  He was therefore driving whilst disqualified (Count 2).  It was subsequently established he was not insured (Count 3).

The following day the accused and his girlfriend attended at Police Headquarters to produce their driving documents.  They arrived in the accused's vehicle driven by his girlfriend.  The girlfriend produced a windscreen insurance disc for her car.  It was established this was stolen.  The accused produced a cover note and temporary widow insurance disc for his car.  The cover note was found to have been altered using tippex fluid.  The insurance disc had been forged (Counts 4, 5, 6 and 7).  The accused's girlfriend was not insured to drive his car (Count 8).  The accused's vehicle was left at Police Headquarters overnight.  It was examined by an officer of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Department and found to have near and offside front windows which had been illegally darkened. (Count 9).

During interview the accused said he had not realised his provisional driving license had expired and admitted this was his fault for not checking.  He admitted driving uninsured on the Esplanade.  He also admitted allowing his girlfriend to drive to Police Headquarters uninsured the following day.  He candidly confirmed he had forged the windscreen insurance disc and cover note.  He described his actions as a "fraudulent mistake".  He admitted that in bad light or poor weather he was obliged to wind down the front widows of his vehicle.

Breach of Probation - Community Service Order (previous Indictment).

The police were investigating a break-in at an electrical firm.  A warrant was executed at the accused's home address the following drugs were recovered:  Diamorphine (heroin) 151 mg. MDMA (ecstasy) 3 tablets.  Cannabis resin 1.31 grams.  Buprenorphine (Subutex 140.4 mg) (6 tablets).

The accused was charged.  A further warrant was later executed at his home address and the following additional drugs seized: Diamorphine (heroin) 132 mg.  LSD 7 ¾ squares.  Cannabis resin 1.5 grams.  Diazepam (Valium) ½ tablet Buprenorphine (Subutex) 2.4 mg.

In addition, the accused admitted supplying one "50" bag of heroin to another heroin user.  This was a non-commercial supply to a friend for which he received no payment.  He also admitted buying ten valium tablets for £1 each and supplying five of these to another person for £1.50 (a total of £2.50).  The Crown accepted this was not commercial trafficking and the guideline cases did not apply.

Details of Mitigation:

Residual youth.  Guilty pleas (with the exception of charges relating to using a certificate of insurance and windscreen insurance disc to deceive) these were entered at a relatively early stage.  Remorse.  Unfortunate family background.

Previous Convictions:

Appalling record containing numerous convictions for possession of controlled drugs and miscellaneous motoring offences.  The accused had consistently breached previous Probation, Community Service  and Binding Over Orders.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, disqualified from holding/obtaining licence for 12 months.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, disqualified for 12 months.  Concurrent.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 6:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 7:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 8:	6 months' imprisonment, disqualified for 12 months.  Concurrent.
Count 9:	Fine £100, or 4 weeks' imprisonment in default.  Concurrent.

Counts 2 and 3 to run concurrent with each other, but to follow consecutive to Count 1.

Counts 4 to 8 and the default  term imposed on Count 9 to run (in the case of the default term) concurrently with each other, but to follow consecutively the total term of imprisonment imposed on Counts 1 to 3.

Total: 15 months' imprisonment, 12 months disqualification for holding/obtaining licence and fined £100.

Former Indictment: 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to the total term imposed in relation to the new Indictment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, disqualified from holding/obtaining licence for 12 months.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, disqualified for 12 months.  Concurrent.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 6:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 7:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 8:	3 months' imprisonment, disqualified for 12 months.  Concurrent.
Count 9:	Discharged.

Total: 9 months' imprisonment and 12 months' disqualification.

Forfeiture and destruction ordered.

3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to the total term imposed in relation to the new Indictment.  Save for Count 5 reduced to 2 months.

11 months total with those above.

In January, 2006, the accused had been given a chance.  The Court had hoped he would take it.  It was made clear that if he re-offended prison was likely.  The Court was disappointed to see the accused back before it.  It was clear from the reports that he had made progress.  This had halted and he had relapsed into drugs and other criminal activity.

On 10^th June, 2006, the accused had been arrested and interviewed in relation to possession of heroin.  Only ten days later he committed various motoring offences.  Some of these involved dishonesty (altering the insurance disc and certificate of insurance).

The Court had considered carefully all that had been said by the accused's Advocate and the content of the Social Enquiry Report.  It was disappointed.  The accused had been given a chance.  He only had himself to blame.  The Court was also disappointed he had no completed his Community Service.

The accused would be given no more changes.  Despite the letters from himself and his partner the court would impose a term of imprisonment - although it would reduce slightly the conclusions moved for. 

The Court noted that the accused had performed 40 of the 90 hours; Community Service imposed on him in January, 2006.  In imposing the 90 hour Community Service Order the Court had had in mind a three month term of imprisonment.  Some time should be allowed for the hours served.  The sentences moved for by the Crown would be imposed save for Count 5 where the three month term of imprisonment would be reduced to two months making a total of 2 months' imprisonment.

The sentence of two months in relation to the breach offences would run consecutively to the 9 months' imprisonment imposed on the new indictment making an overall total of 11 months' imprisonment and disqualification for a period of 12 months.  In addition the Court would order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs received from the accused on 10^th June 2006.

A. J.  Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. J. L. Buckley for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        When you appeared before us in January we said that this was your chance, and we hoped that you would take advantage of it, and we warned you that if you re-offended then prison was likely to be the outcome.  It is very disappointing to see you here again today.  It is clear from the reports that you did make progress, you have made progress since the last occasion, but that progress appears to have come to a halt and you relapsed, both in terms of your drug consumption and a return to criminal offences.

2.        The difficulty we face is that it is not just that you committed the drug offence on 10^th June.  You were then arrested and interviewed.  This did not bring home to you the seriousness of your situation, that you were in breach of probation, because only ten days later you committed all the various motoring offences, which included offences of dishonesty, in the sense of fraudulently altering an insurance disc and an insurance certificate.

3.        We have carefully considered all that your Advocate has said and what is contained in the probation report and we are disappointed that things have turned out this way, but those who are placed on probation and on community service are given a chance and if they do not take the chance they have only themselves to blame.  Probation is not a soft option and we are also extremely disappointed you did not complete the community service.

4.        In all the circumstances, the Court having given you that warning, we think that we can not offer you yet a further chance.  We therefore see no alternative to imprisonment, despite your letter, which we have read, and that of your partner.  However, we do think that the conclusions can be reduced, as we think that, for what you did, they are too long.

5.        The sentence is as follows: on Count 1, 3 months' imprisonment; on Count 2, 3 months' imprisonment, with disqualification for 12 months; on Count 3, 3 months' imprisonment, Counts 2 and 3 to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to Count 1; on Counts 4 to 8 we impose a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment on each Count concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the others making a total, therefore, of 9 months' imprisonment on those Counts.  Count 9 we grant an absolute discharge, given that the garage have admitted it was their fault and you bought it from them, we think that it quite wrong to impose any penalty. 

6.        Turning to the offences for which you were in breach, we note that you've done 40 hours out of the 90 hours and that the Court at the time said that a total of 3 months' imprisonment was what it had in mind.  We think allowance must be made for the fact that you carried out some of the community service.  Therefore, we are going to impose the sentences moved for, save for Count 5, which is reduced from 3 months to 2 months, to take account of the fact that you have carried out the community service.  So all of those concurrent, so that is a total of 2 months on the breach offences.  However, we conclude that they must be consecutive not concurrent.  You were given a chance, you did not take advantage of it and, therefore, there must be a penalty for all those offences.

7.        So, added to the 9 months' that makes a total of 11 months' imprisonment.  That is the sentence together with 12 months' disqualification and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

No Authorities