Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC015

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

1^st February 2008

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jose Sergio Goncalves Soares

Andreia Luisa Aguiar

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

Jose Sergio Goncalves Soares

First Indictment

2 counts of:

Assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 37 of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1981.  (Counts 1 and 2).

Second Indictment

3 counts of:	Illegal entry and larceny (Counts 1, 2 and 4).
1 count of:	Breaking and entry and larceny (Count 3).
1 count of:	Receiving stolen property (Count 5).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 6).

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.  (Not guilty count 4 -plea accepted).

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

Following financial investigations on documents and bank statements seized from Soares' home, it was discovered that Soares and Aguiar had both made a number of unexplained cash payments into their bank accounts.  It was established that they had deposited a total of £5,780 they were keeping on behalf of a convicted drug dealer (Count 1).

Soares also admitted keeping £12,000 cash for that same drug dealer, as well as £3,000 for another (Count 2).

Second Indictment

On 13^th May, 2007, Soares entered an occupied dwelling house in College Hill, St Helier.  He accessed a study area and took a briefcase containing personal papers.  The noise he made alerted the occupier of the house who saw Soares make his escape through a window (Count 1).

On 4^th June, 2007, Soares entered an occupied dwelling house in St Saviour's Road, St Helier where he was disturbed by the occupier who saw him hiding behind a door.  The occupier spoke to Soares who escaped, despite the occupier taking hold of him.  The occupier later discovered that a bank card and £24 cash had disappeared from her handbag (Count 2).

On 5^th June, 2007, Soares forced his way into a dwelling house in Mount Bingham, St Helier, using a crowbar or similar.  The occupier was out at the time.  Soares stole £50 cash from a drawer (Count 3).

On 6^th June, 2007, Soares received a large sum of US Dollars that had been stolen shortly beforehand from an address in Midvale Road, St Helier.  Soares went to the Post Office to exchange the US Dollars, which he then spent on drugs (Count 5).  CCTV footage from the Post Office led to Soares being arrested.

When his home was searched he was found to be in possession of 2.19 grams of cannabis resin (Count 6).  Soares' fingerprints were found to match prints retrieved from the premises in Counts 1 and 3.

The offences committed by Soares put him in breach of a Community Service Order imposed in the Magistrate's Court on 1^st November, 2006 and lengthened on 30^th April, 2007.

Soares' larceny offences were committed over a short period, which is an aggravating factor.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas (wrote his own indictment on laundering offences), youth, admissions, difficult background.

Previous Convictions:

1 previous conviction for 1 offence.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment to run consecutive to the First Indictment.

Total: 4 years' imprisonment.

Breach of Community Service Order - no additional penalty.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Andreia Luisa Aguiar

First Indictment

1 count of:

Assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 37 of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1981.  (Count 1).

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Soares above - First Indictment.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, youth, admissions, difficult background, good employment.

Previous Convictions:

No previous.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

150 hours' Community Service Order, 9 months' youth detention in default.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for Soares.

Advocate J. M. Grace for Aguiar.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Soares, you have admitted to three offences of illegal entry, breaking and entering and larceny of residential property and to an offence of receiving just over $9,000 stolen from a flat shortly before.  The break-ins were in the day rather than at night, but, nevertheless, the Court takes a serious view of burglaries of peoples' houses, not least because of the continuing distress and worry that can be caused to the victims whose homes have been broken into.

2.        You have also pleaded guilty to two offences of money laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking.  You and your co-defendant permitted some £5,780 to be washed through your bank accounts and you looked after a further £15,000 in cash for a drug dealer. 

3.        You are also in breach of a Community Service Order imposed for an assault on your co-accused with whom you were living when you were arrested. 

4.        Miss Fogarty has put forward mitigation on your behalf.  She has pointed out that you have pleaded guilty and this enables the Court to pass a much lesser sentence than if you had pleaded not guilty.  Furthermore, you wrote your own indictment in relation to the £15,000 additional cash which you laundered. 

5.        We take into account that you have only just attained the age of 21, and we also note the difficult background disclosed in the reports before us.  The fact remains that money laundering is a very serious offence.  We agree with the comment in the case of Hanna [1994] 15 Cr. App. R. (S) 44 which said:

"...friends of drug dealers and their wives must also understand that if they suspect that money which is coming into their hands is coming from drug dealing then the thing to do is to have nothing to do with it because if you have anything to do with it imprisonment will almost automatically follow".

6.        We also agree with what was said in another case called Greenwood [1995] 16 Cr. App. R. (S) 614, "Those who launder money from drugs are nearly as bad as those who actually deal in them.  It is merely one step along the line".

7.        We have carefully considered all the mitigation which has been put forward, but we agree with the Crown that an aggregate sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for the burglary offences is correct.  We must also have regard to the totality principle and we therefore agree with the Crown that a total sentence of 4 years' imprisonment is appropriate.  This means the Crown has only moved for 12 months on the money laundering offences.  Because of the need to achieve a total of only 4 years we are going to agree with the conclusions, but we wish to emphasise that, in view of the seriousness of money laundering, a sentence of 12 months is considerably less than you would have received had the money laundering offences stood alone. 

8.        Taking account of the totality we agree with the conclusions of the Crown and therefore on the First Indictment you are sentenced to 12 months on Count 1 and 9 months on Count 2, concurrent.  On the other indictment the sentences are as follows, Count 1; 3 years, Count 2; 3 years, Count 3; 3 years, Count 5; 3 years, Count 6; 3 months all of these are concurrent, but consecutive to the sentence on the first indictment, making a total of 4 years' imprisonment. 

9.        We discharge the Community Service Order and impose no additional penalty for that breach.

10.      Turning to the question of deportation we are quite satisfied that your continued presence in Jersey would be detrimental to the community.  You have a previous offence for grave and criminal assault.  You have now committed this series of serious offences and you are assessed as being at high risk of re-offending.  We must nevertheless consider whether deportation would be proportionate taking account of your right and the right of innocent others to a personal life.  You have not been in Jersey long, having arrived in March 2006, and you only have one brother here.  You have no dependants and the rest of your family is either in Madeira or elsewhere.  We therefore have no hesitation in finding that it would not be disproportionate to make a recommendation and we do make a recommendation for deportation.

11.      Miss Aguiar, we accept that you were persuaded by Soares to allow your account to be used.  He was the prime mover, but nevertheless money laundering is extremely serious and you should have refused to have had anything to do with it.  We take into account your plea of guilty, the fact that this is your first offence, your good work record and the fact that you are 19.  We also take into account all the other mitigation on the papers before us.  In all the circumstances we can agree with the Crown that an immediate sentence of youth detention is not necessary in your case and that community service is an appropriate alternative to youth detention.

12.      Mrs Grace has argued that the 150 hours requested by the Crown is too much, and in particular would give rise to disparity with your co-accused's sentence.  She points out that it is the equivalent of 9 months' youth detention and that this is not much less than the 12 months imposed on your co-accused, despite his much greater involvement.  But this is to ignore the fact that the 12 months imposed on your co-accused is an artificially low sentence because of the totality principle.  His part in these money laundering offences would justify a much greater sentence had they stood alone.  I repeat that the Court takes a serious view of the money laundering of drug trafficking proceeds.  You are extremely fortunate that an immediate sentence of youth detention is not being imposed and we think that an equivalent of 9 months' youth detention is the minimum sentence that could possibly be imposed for an offence of this nature.  We therefore agree with the conclusions of the Crown. 

13.      On the one count that you face we impose a Community Service Order of 150 hours and we state that the alternative sentence we had in mind was one of 9 months' youth detention. 

14.      The Crown does not move for deportation in your case, but you must understand that if you were to re-offend deportation might well follow on such a case. 

15.      Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered.

Authorities

Hanna [1994] 15 Cr. App. R. (S) 44.

Greenwood [1995] 16 Cr. App. R. (S) 614.