Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC195

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

11^th October 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

Marco Paulo Gouveia Vieira

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 31^st August, 2007, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  33.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant had 217 grams of heroin hidden in a storage unit.  He also admitted to supplying around 50 grams of heroin.  He initially came into possession of the drugs reluctantly.  A large quantity was put into his car on behalf of someone to whom he owed a debt of £400.  He was then instructed to look after the heroin and deal with it according to instructions received from its owner.  He proceeded to trade in the heroin and sold some of it to three separate parties, in return for which he received £1,900.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Good character.  Fully co-operative and assisted police, taking them to the drugs.  Effectively wrote his own indictment.  Named supplier and organiser.  Very remorseful.  Family man in stable relationship with partner of 7 years and young son.  Low risk of re-offending.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

The Crown acknowledged that the defendant was not the organiser of the operation and that his initial participation was reluctant.  However, the quantity of heroin was substantial and he had gone on to become a dealer, selling it and receiving a profit.

The defendant pleaded guilty and has shown remorse.  He made early admissions to the police and provided the names of other people involved.

Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation order of £12,910 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Deportation order sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

The Court noted that the circumstances of this case were unusual and that the offences were out of character for the defendant who had a good work record.  The Court also took account of the defendant's immediate admissions, his assistance to the police and his genuine remorse, however they felt these had been allowed for by the Crown and upheld the conclusions.

Confiscation order of £12,910 made.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs made.

Deportation: The Court considered that this was a very serious offence but in carrying out the balancing exercise, the defendant's family circumstances were also considered.  The defendant has a girlfriend in the island; they have a young son who was born here.  It was noted that the decision to recommend deportation is discretionary.  In this case, the Jurats had taken into consideration the defendant's assistance to the police and on balance no recommendation for deportation was made.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. J. D. Winchester for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        We declare benefit in the sum of £12,910 and make a confiscation order in that sum.

2.        The Court accepts that the circumstances in which you came to be involved in drug dealing were very unusual, and that you were, initially, a very reluctant participant, as described by the Crown.  However the fact remains that after a while you began dealing and you were found in possession of 217 grams and had already supplied something in the region of 50 grams.  The applicable Rimmer brackets are 10-13 years for 100-250 grams and 11-14 years for 250-400 grams.  We agree with the Crown that the correct starting point is one of 12 years. 

3.        In mitigation Mr Winchester has raised a number of matters on your behalf.  He has referred to the unusual circumstances in which this began, your immediate admissions and the fact that you took the police to where the heroin was stashed, to your co-operation during interview, to the fact that you have no previous convictions and you have a good work record, which is referred to in the background report, that you are clearly remorseful for what you have done, and that you are assessed as being at low risk of re-offending and you do not have a drug habit.  Added to that there is the fact that you have, as Mr Baker has stated, given assistance to the police by naming the supplier and organiser and providing the names of persons to whom you had supplied drugs.  The Court has repeatedly said that where defendants give information of this sort, and are willing to admit to that in public, the Court will give a substantial discount.  Nevertheless we think that, in all the circumstances, the Crown has made allowance for all these matters and therefore we think that the sentence moved for is correct.

4.        The sentence of imprisonment is one of 5 years' imprisonment, concurrent on every count. 

5.        We must next consider the question of deportation.  This was a very serious offence because of the amount of the heroin.  Again Mr Baker has referred us to the comment in the English case of R v Carmona [2006] EWCA Crim 508, that even one serious offence may lead to the conclusion that an offender's presence is detrimental, even if he is at low risk of re-offending.  We find that your continued presence would be detrimental.  We next have to consider your rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and those of your family.  You were born and brought up in Madeira, you came to Jersey about 7 years ago, and you have been here since.  You have met and lived with your girlfriend, who moved here 10 years ago, being Portuguese, although not from Madeira.  You have a 3 year old son together.  There is no extended family in Jersey and we find that there would be no reason why your partner and son should not accompany you to Portugal, or Madeira, on your release, given that she is Portuguese and, no doubt, your son will be brought up speaking Portuguese as well as English.  So we find that deportation would not be disproportionate.  But ultimately a recommendation for deportation is matter of discretion.  On whether to make a recommendation the Jurats are divided, but the majority find that, because of the fact that you supplied useful information to the police and because of the fact that you are in addition willing to acknowledge this in open Court, thereby enabling the Court to send a message that it pays to give such assistance, the Court has decided not to make a recommendation in this case.  However you must realise that this is your last chance, if you re-offend when you are released, then you will be deported.

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

Authorities

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade v AG [2001] JLR 737.

R v Carmona [2006] EWCA Crim 508.

European Convention on Human Rights.