Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Camacho [2007] JRC 021 (29 January 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2007/2007_021.html
Cite as: [2007] JRC 021, [2007] JRC 21

[New search] [Help]

[2007]JRC021

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th January 2007

Before :

M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, King, Allo, Clapham, Le Cornu and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

Pedro Nuno Goncalves Camacho

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

1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 1).
3 counts of:	Larceny. (Counts 2, 4 and 16).
2 counts of:	Obtaining money by false pretences. (Counts 3 and 15).
1 count of:	Obtaining goods by false pretences. (Count 5).
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. (Count 6).
1 count of:	Forgery of paper money. (Count 7).
1 count of:	Possession of forged paper money. (Count 8).
1 count of:	Uttering forged paper money. (Count 9).
2 counts of:	Forgery. (Counts 10 and 12).
1 count of:	Breaking and entry and larceny. (Count 11).
2 counts of:	Attempted larceny. (Counts 13 and 14).

Age: 28.

Plea: Counts 1 - 7 and 9 - 16 Guilty. Count 8 Not Guilty - plea accepted.

Details of Offence:

The defendant had a heroin addiction and was selling heroin as well as committing acts of dishonesty in order to fund his habit. He volunteered the information with regard to the supply of heroin charge. The break and entry and one of the larcenies of a blank cheque involved an element of breach of trust in that the defendant used keys he had been entrusted with as a result of his employment to carry out the offences. The shoplifting offence was committed whilst on remand for the other offences. The larceny of the Social Security cheque was considered a mean offence being stolen, as it was, from an individual in receipt of invalidity benefit.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.

With regard to the supply of heroin charge he had entirely written his own indictment.

Had become drug free whilst in prison.

Previous Convictions:

The Defendant had numerous previous convictions, the most relevant of which being:

Two convictions for driving without insurance.

Larceny as a servant in 2001.

Obtaining by false pretences in 2002.

Possession of Class A and B drugs.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2-6:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 11.
Count 7:	9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1.
Counts 9 and 10:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 7.
Count 11:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1 and 7.
Count 12:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 7.
Counts 13-16:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 11.

Total 6 years 9 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation order - nominal amount £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2 - 9:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 12:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Counts 13 and 14:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 15:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. Amended to attempting.
Count 16:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total 6½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Confiscation - nominal amount £1.

Deportation date to be fixed.

Conclusions granted save that the sentences for forgery were reduced to 6 months on each concurrent making a total sentence of 6½ years' in custody.

A nominal confiscation order was made uncontested.

The issue of deportation was adjourned to allow the Defendant time to obtain medical evidence with regard to his girlfriend.

S. E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1. You have admitted selling something in the region of 50 grams of heroin as a retail dealer over some 6 months, and to committing a number of offences of dishonesty, including breaking and entry, forgery and larceny, some of which were mean offences involving an element of breach of trust. Both sets of offences were committed to fund your heroin addiction which, you say, was running at a rate of about 4 bags of heroin.

2. You have some previous convictions for dishonesty and also for possession of drugs although we accept you have no previous convictions for dealing in drugs.

3. We take first the offence of supplying heroin. The Crown suggests a starting point of 10 years and we think that is correct.

4. In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea and also the fact that you wrote your own indictment on the supply charge. We take into account all the other matters urged by your counsel, which are in the reports before us. We agree that on the supply charge the right sentence overall is one of 5 years' imprisonment.

5. We then have to consider what sentence to pass for the others where the mitigation is similar except in respect of writing your indictment. In particular we have to have regard to the totality principle. We think that overall, the right sentence is one of 6½ years' imprisonment. We are going to reach that by adjusting the conclusions slightly.

6. On Count 1, it is 5 years; on Count 2, 6 months; on Count 3, 6 months; on Count 4, 6 months; on Count 5, 6 months; on Count 6, 6 months; on Count 7, 6 months; on Count 9, 6 months; Count 11, 12 months; Count 10, 9 months, Count 12, 9 months; Count 13, 6 months; and 6 months' imprisonment, similarly on Counts 14, 15 and 16. We order that Count 7 be consecutive and Count 11 be consecutive, so that is an additional 18 months' imprisonment on the 5 years' making a total of 6½ years' imprisonment altogether. All other sentences concurrent.

No Authorities