Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC078

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2^nd April 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

John Dennis Viera de Freitas

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 1^st December, 2006, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Age:  23.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant was arrested outside the 'Jersey Live' concert and when searched he was found to be carrying £618 in cash and 117 ecstasy tablets in a money bag concealed in his sock (Count 4).  During interview he admitted to having sold more than two thousand ecstasy tablets during the previous 10 month period.  He also admitted to supplying approximately one kilo of cannabis over the same period (Counts 1 and 2).

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, residual youth, co-operation with the police.  Wrote his own indictment in respect of Counts 1 and 2; previous good character; remorse; low risk of re-offending; personal references.

Previous Convictions:

Two previous convictions relating to relatively minor non-relevant offences.

Conclusions:

Determination that Defendant had benefited from drug trafficking in the sum of £25,040: Confiscation Order £2,583.12 (unopposed).

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Confiscation Order made.

Total: 4½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr De Freitas you were in possession of 117 ecstasy tablets which you were going to sell for profit at the Jersey Live concert.  After your arrest you admitted selling something in the region of 2,000 tablets of ecstasy over the preceding few months.  You also admitted selling approximately 1 kilo of cannabis over that period.  You were, in effect, a retail dealer and you saw this as a way of making easy money.  This was not the more normal case of an addict who sells in order to feed his habit, you were doing it for reward.

2.        We must consider first the starting point and we take first the most serious Count, that's Count 2, and we agree with the Crown that the correct starting point is 10 years, having regard to the amount involved and the nature and scale of your involvement.  As to Count 4 we think a starting point of 7 years would be appropriate. 

3.        In mitigation you have pleaded guilty from the outset and that entitles you to the full discount.  Most importantly in relation to Count 2, the most serious Count, you wrote your own Indictment, in other words you admitted it when the Police did not know about it, and therefore you are entitled to additional deduction on that Count.  You have no previous drug offences and your previous offences are very minor and we take no notice of them.  There is clearly a good side to you, we have read the references, we have read your letter and we note that you had been accepted at Leeds Metropolitan University and it is indeed very sad that, as a result of your actions, you will not be able to follow that course.  We take into account your youth, you were a young man at the time, and the Court never likes to send a young man to prison for a lengthy period.  The fact remains that this was a deliberate course of conduct on your part for financial reward and there is no alternative to a prison sentence.  We do however think we can reduce the conclusions a little to take account of all the mitigation we have described.

4.        The sentence of the Court is as follows, on Count 1; 1 year's imprisonment, on Count 2; 4½ years' imprisonment, on Count 4; 4 years' imprisonment, so that is a total of 4½ years.

5.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

No Authorities