Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC130

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

3^rd July 2007

Before     :

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

The Attorney General

-v-

Laurinda Jose Moniz Paulo De Sa

Jose Luciano Goncalves Da Costa

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court following guilty pleas to:

Laurinda Jose Moniz Paulo De Sa

First Indictment

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Count 1).
1 count 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) Law, 1999.  (Count 2).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1 - Following her arrest on 6^th December 2006, for an offence which was subsequently withdrawn, De Sa was found to be in possession, at Rouge Bouillon police station, of 214 milligrams of cannabis resin.

Count 2 - On 24^th November 2006, De Sa was stopped by customs at Jersey Airport having arrived on a flight from London Gatwick.  She was found to have internally secreted 52.62 grams of heroin.  De Sa had travelled from Jersey to London Gatwick the previous day and on the same booking as Da Costa.  De Sa made a statement saying that Da Costa had offered her £3,000 to travel to London, and when in London he had purchased the heroin and instructed her to carry it back with her to Jersey.  She was then to deliver it to him on her arrival.  She stated that Da Costa had threatened her if she did not follow his instructions and that it was also his idea to return to Jersey a day earlier than planned.  She further stated that he had told her that he had to fly back to Jersey on an earlier flight alone due to a shortage of available seats.  Da Costa stated that he travelled to London with De Sa to act as a translator and that on return to Jersey he was not to be involved with the drugs, or her reward payment.

Details of Mitigation:

Inevitable guilty plea, youth, cooperation, previous good character.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Starting point 9 years.

Count 1:	1 week's imprisonment.
Count 2:	4½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought on completion of sentence.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 9 years.

Count 1:	1 week's imprisonment.
Count 2:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Deportation recommended on completion of sentence.

Jose Luciano Goncalves Da Costa

Second Indictment

1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of controlled drugs, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999.  (Count 1).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Counts 2 and 3).

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1 - see Count 2 of De Sa, above.

Counts 2 and 3 - On the 27^th November 2006, following Da Costa's arrest in relation to Count 1, his flat was searched and a bottle of tablets was recovered.  In interview, Da Costa admitted purchasing the 15 temazepam and 2 ½ buprenorphine tablets without prescription and therefore being in illegal possession of Class C drugs.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea, previous good character.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Starting point 9 years.

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order £370 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 9 years.

Count 1:	4½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4½ years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order £370.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Deportation recommended. 

T. J. Le Cocq Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. J. Clarke for De Sa.

Advocate D. J. Benest for Da Costa.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were both involved in the importation of 52 grams of heroin.  You De Sa carried the drugs internally and you De Costa accompanied her knowing the purpose of the trip.  You have both given inconsistent versions of the exact part which you each played, but we do not find it necessary to resolve that difference.  As has been accepted by each of your counsel, we will treat you as being equally responsible.  We accept that you acted as couriers and not as organisers. 

2.        The Crown has suggested a starting point of 9 years' imprisonment.  This is at the bottom of the relevant bracket in the case of Rimmer.  Your counsel do not oppose it and we agree it as the correct starting point.

3.        De Sa you have pleaded guilty.  You have admitted your involvement from the outset and that stands you in good stead.  You also have no previous convictions and you were only 22 at the time of this offending.  The most important mitigation in your case is that you made a witness statement telling what had occurred in this case, which was used in respect of your co-accused.  Now taking all this into account the Court is unanimous in thinking that a greater deduction can be made than was made by the Crown, but the Court is divided on how much.  Three of the Jurats would impose a sentence of 4 years, three of the Jurats would impose a sentence of 3½ years because of the powerful mitigation of making a statement against your co-accused.  I think that the reasoning of those last three Jurats is correct and therefore the sentence will be one of 3½ years.

4.        On Count 1 the sentence is 1 week's imprisonment and on Count 2 the sentence is 3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.  So that's 3½ years in total.

5.        In relation to deportation we have no difficulty in finding that your continued presence in the Island is detrimental.  This Court has said on many occasions that if foreign nationals choose to involve themselves in trafficking Class A drugs they are likely to find themselves deported.  Your presence is clearly detrimental because of the seriousness of the offence and you are also at high risk of re-offending according to the reports.  You have no family here, your family is in Madeira.  You have not opposed deportation and we recommend deportation in your case.

6.        De Costa you also have pleaded guilty and the Crown accepts that you should have a one third deduction for that.  You too have a good character.  You have a very unfortunate background, which has been explained in the reports, and in effect you have had to make your own way in life without any support from parents from the age of about 14 onwards.  We commend you for the fact that you have been in Guernsey for a number of years and have not offended during that time and have been regularly employed.  However, you appear to have developed a heroin addiction recently and that led you into these offences and we are pleased to hear of the efforts you are making in prison to overcome that heroin addiction.  In all the circumstances we think that a slightly greater deduction can be made than was made by the Crown.

7.        In your case the sentence is as follows: on Count 1 - 4½ years' imprisonment; on Count 2 - 2 weeks' imprisonment; on Count 3 - 1 week, all of those concurrent.  So that is 4½ years' imprisonment in all.

8.        Then we have had to consider deportation in your case as well.  For the same reasons as in respect of your co-accused, we are in no doubt that your continued presence in the Island is detrimental.  You too are expressed as being at high risk of re-offending in the reports.  You only came to Jersey in February 2006 but you had previously spent some 12 years or so in Guernsey.  You have one brother here and one sister in Guernsey and it is clear you do not have family in Madeira.  As against that you have no other family here, you are a single man of 26 and we repeat that these were serious offences in that those who deal in Class A drugs are at risk of deportation.  We have considered whether deportation is proportionate given your rights under Article 8, and those of your family, but we consider it would not be disproportionate and therefore we are going to make a recommendation for deportation.

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

Authorities

Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001] JRC 148.