Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC051

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

23^rd February 2007

Before     :

F. C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Allo, and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Vitor Manuel De Carvalho

Neuza Regina Melim De Carvalho

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court to the following charges:

Vitor Manuel De Carvalho

1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Count 1).
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 3).

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant asked his wife (and co-defendant) to bring to him his purse containing 11 wraps of heroin at Alfanso's Café.  He sold 3 wraps and had the remaining 8 on him when arrested.  He informed officers that he had what turned out to be 6-12 grams of heroin at home for his own and his wife's use.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Previous good character evidenced by lack of previous convictions and references supplied.  Co-operation in that he made ready admissions and told police about the 6-12 grams of heroin at his home which officers had failed to discover when searching the premises. Youth aged 21 years at the time of sentencing and 20 years at the time of the offence.  Remorse and had detoxed from his heroin addiction whilst in custody.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Neuza Regina Melim De Carvelho

Count 5 withdrawn.

1 count of:	Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Count 4).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Counts 6).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty (Counts 4 and 6).

Details of Offence:

The Defendant, at her husband's request, took to him his purse containing 11 wraps of heroin knowing it contained heroin and that he was intending to supply the same.  She was also in joint possession of the heroin at their home which her husband had purchased without her knowledge but which she had shared.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Previous good character evidenced by her lack of previous convictions and the references supplied.  Youth aged 22 years at the time of sentencing and 21 years at the time of the offences.  Remorse and had detoxed in custody.

The couple had a 3 year old child who had been residing with her maternal grandmother since prior to the offences.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 4:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 6:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted and recommendation for deportation made.

S. E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for V. M. De Carvalho.

Advocate R. J. MacRae for N. R. M. De Carvalho.

JUDGMENT

commissioner:

1.        This has been in every sense a difficult case and we have spent a considerable time considering it.  Mr De Carvalho has pleaded guilty to 3 serious Counts: supplying three wraps of heroin for £150 on the 29^th August; possession with intent to supply of a further 8 wraps on the same occasion and possession with intent to supply at his home address a further 6.12 grams of heroin with a potential street value of £825, that is a wholesale value of £1,224.

2.        Mrs De Carvalho has also pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of the three wraps by her husband and possession of the heroin found at the couple's home.

3.        It is of some forensic interest that while a search of the couple's home revealed no heroin, it was the husband who directed the police to a bag of heroin found on the mantelpiece.  Mr De Carvalho had, on his own admission, purchased the heroin the previous Sunday for £1,000, both had smoked some of it.  The purity was apparently 18%.

4.        Neither of the two accused has any previous convictions. 

5.        The Crown has taken 7 years as its starting point for Mr Carvalho, reduced it by way of mitigation to 2 years because of the guilty plea, the lack of previous convictions and the very many references supplied, his co-operation in identifying the amount of drugs missed by the police in their original dog-assisted search of the flat and the fact that he was only 20 at the time of the offences. 

6.        Mrs De Carvalho, who assisted her husband in supplying the three wraps and was in possession of the heroin, has had a starting point taken by the Crown of 6 years to show her relatively limited involvement.  The Crown took into account the guilty plea, the previous good character and the references, and the fact that she was only 21 at the time of the offences and thereby reduced the sentences to 12 months concurrent.

7.        Advocates Grace and MacRae have dealt with the defence in very great detail.  It is apparent that Mr De Carvalho worked very hard as a building labourer from 8 until 5, and then after that, as a waiter from 7 o'clock until midnight.  The couple apparently sent £100 a month to their grandmother for the upkeep of their young daughter and we have a letter from an ex-colonel of the Portuguese army, dated 6^th February, 2007, which states:

"Very recently the grandmother and their daughter Mariana have both been seriously ill without being able to leave their homes, and they were both, at the time, completely dependent on the kindness and generosity of their friends."

It now appears, Advocate MacRae having taken instructions, that the two only (let me use the word advisedly) had chicken pox. 

8.        We quite frankly do not understand how the two accused survive financially, but that is beside the point.  On what we have read, in the reports, there is much confusion, for instance Madeira is not in Portugal, the marriage took place last year and not before the daughter was born, but, of course, none of this is material to the decision we have to make.

9.        We have given the matter considerable thought over a very long period of time but we are prepared to follow the Crown's conclusions, bearing in mind that the couple have each served an equivalent of 8 months and 4 days. 

10.      Mr De Carvalho is sentenced to 2 years on Count 1, 12 months' concurrent on Count 2, 2 years' concurrent on Count 3, and that takes into account the amount that he has already spent in prison. 

11.      Mrs De Carvalho on Count 4 is sentenced to 12 months and on Count 6 to 12 months' concurrent and, that again, takes into account the amount that she has already spent in prison. 

12.      We order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

13.      We then come to the question of deportation.  Mrs De Carvalho is a regular user of heroin and her deportation would certainly not cause hardship in Jersey to innocent persons.  We are going to order that Mrs De Carvalho be deported at the end of her sentence.  We should point out she has only friends in Jersey and a daughter in Portugal.  As to Mr De Carvalho he was a heavy user of heroin but his family is all in Portugal and we will recommend that he be deported once his prison sentence comes to an end, but in any event, he has apparently agreed to deportation through his Counsel.

No Authorities