[2007]JRC020
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
29th January 2007
Before : |
M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Le Brocq, Allo, Clapham, Le Cornu and Liddiard. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Antra Parole
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty pleas to:
2 counts 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 and Count 3). |
2 counts of: |
Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Counts 2 and 4). |
Age: 38.
Plea: Counts 1 and 3 Guilty. Counts 2 and 4 Not Guilty and not proceeded with.
Details of Offence:
The defendant acted as a courier bringing 116 ecstasy tablets and 320 diazepam tablets into the Island on a flight from Gatwick concealed internally.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea.
Some co-operation in that she had given the first name and mobile telephone number of the man who she was due to meet but attempts to trace him had not proved productive. She had not, however, admitted that she was carrying drugs when stopped at Customs and had not answered questions in interview.
No relevant previous convictions.
She was assessed as being at low risk of re-offending.
A national of Latvia she was a long way from home, spoke no English and was apart from her two children aged 15 years and 3 years who were being cared for by their respective fathers.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
Count 1: |
6 years' imprisonment. |
Count 3: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total 6 years' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered.
Recommendation for deportation.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1: |
4 years' imprisonment. |
Count 3: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total 4 years' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered.
Recommended for deportation.
The Court took the lowest starting point within the range of 7-9 years appropriate for the quantity of ecstasy tablets and did not consider it appropriate to raise that starting point to reflect the quantity of Class C drugs also imported.
S. E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. Grace for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. You have pleaded guilty to importing a Class A drug and a Class C drug. It is accepted that you were simply a courier, but what persuaded you to leave Latvia and travel to Jersey with these drugs is something of a mystery. The Crown has taken a starting point of 9 years' imprisonment on the basis of the case of Bonner and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626, which suggests a starting point of between 7 and 9 years for between 1 - 500 tablets of a Class A drug. The Crown has added to the starting point for the Class C drugs in accordance with the case of AG v Valler [2002] JRC 048.
2. We think that if the 116 ecstasy tablets were on their own, as a mere courier, the starting point would have been 7 years. In the particular circumstances of this case, and bearing in mind the small amount of the Class C drug, we see no need to uplift the starting point beyond 7 years.
3. In mitigation we take into account the matters urged by your advocate. These include the guilty plea, the fact that you have no previous convictions, your remorse and your co-operation. We also take into account that you will be in prison in a far off land where you do not speak the language and away from your children. But those who import drugs to Jersey must understand that they will face a substantial prison sentence.
4. In all the circumstances we impose a sentence of 4 years on Count 1, and 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent on Count 3, making 4 years' imprisonment in all. As to deportation we agree that your presence here is detrimental to Jersey and you have no family or other contacts here. In the circumstances we recommend your deportation, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
Bonner and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626.
AG v Valler [2002] JRC 048.