Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC083

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

23^h May 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

John Luis Gouveia

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

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

On 22^nd March, 2008, Mr Gouveia arrived in Jersey on a flight from Gatwick in possession of cocaine and heroin with a combined street value of £756.  The Class A drugs were discovered after officers took swabs from possessions which the accused had with him.  The pocket of a pair of shorts he was carrying contained traces of cocaine and the inside of his bag revealed traces of heroin.  Mr Gouveia was then x-rayed and the heroin and cocaine were discovered.  The next day the drugs, wrapped in cling film, were excreted and confiscated.  The total weight of cocaine was calculated as 631 milligrams and heroin as 706 milligrams.  Mr Gouveia admitted having purchased the drugs in London and having imported them for personal use only.

Details of Mitigation:

Importation was solely for personal use.  The accused is in a stable relationship and has an 11 month old daughter.  Good employment history as a mechanic.  Mr Gouveia's employer provided a letter detailing that he may return to work if not given a custodial sentence.

Previous Convictions:

Various motor offences.  Simple possession of cannabis.  Possession of ecstasy with intent to supply.  Being concerned in the supplying of diamorphine (heroin) for which the defendant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

Conclusions:

Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.

Total: 15 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 18 months' Probation Order.

The Court recognised this to be a turning point in Mr Gouveia's life.  He has never been put on probation before, having only received custodial sentences due to the seriousness of his previous convictions.  The Court therefore sentenced Mr Gouveia to 18 months' probation under the usual general conditions with the addition of further special conditions.  These conditions being that Mr Gouveia return to the alcohol and drugs rehabilitation unit for a period of 23 months and comply with further drugs testing as his probation officer directs. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

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

Advocate J. M. P. Gleeson for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The Probation Report describes the defendant as having a great many positive qualities.  He is a good worker and impresses as pleasant and caring.  He has, however, one flaw and that is his liking for illegal drugs.  He started using cannabis at the age of 16 and has since been a regular user.  At 18 he started taking ecstasy at the weekends and was imprisoned for a year for being in possession of 15 ecstasy tablets with intent to supply.  He was introduced to heroin shortly after his release. 

2.        In January, 2005, when he was approximately 23, he was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for his part of a conspiracy to import heroin.  After his release he started a new relationship, from which he has a young daughter.  Despite this he began dabbling in heroin again and by Christmas last year was back to his habit of consuming heroin at the cost of some £50 a day.

3.        On a trip to visit a terminally ill aunt, he could not resist the offer of one gram of heroin and cocaine for a total of £90 which we accept, having heard the submissions of Mr Gleeson, he did not intend to import into the Island.  He had intended to dispose of the drugs at Gatwick Airport but under the influence of part of those drugs he made the spontaneous, and in Mr Gleeson's words, "stupid decision" to bring the drugs with him.  Having heard the flight called he wrapped them in clingfilm from sandwiches he was eating and concealed them internally. 

4.        The amount of drugs in this case was, 631 milligrams of cocaine, and 706 milligrams of heroin, 1.34 grams in total with a street value of £756 approximately, and is accepted by the prosecution as being for the defendant's personal use.

5.        Notwithstanding, it is clear from the guidelines given by the Court of Appeal in Shahnowaz v AG [2007] JLR 221, that the starting point is set by reference to the Rimmer guidelines.  The Crown has taken 7 years as the starting point and the defence take no exception to that and we agree that it is the correct starting point.

6.        The fact that the drugs were for personal use is a matter of mitigation.  In relation to mitigation the defendant pleaded guilty, although we accept that was virtually inevitable bearing in mind the drugs were found on him.  He does have some residual youth and has been assessed by the Probation Office as being at a low risk of re-offending.  We have read the reports, his own letter and the other letters that have been put before us, but we accept that the main mitigation is the fact that these drugs were for his personal use. 

7.        Mr Gafoor says that the defendant now appears to be motivated to finally overcome this addiction and to fulfil his parental responsibility, and he has resisted offers of illegal drugs in prison so far.  He recommends a mandated treatment order that he attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service for a period of 12 months, during which abstinence will be confirmed by drugs testing.  The Probation Service point out that he has never in fact had the benefit of a Probation Order in the past to address his drug addiction because the previous offences were too serious to permit that.  They recommend a 12 month probation order.

8.        The Bailiff made it clear in the case of AG v Abreu [2007] JRC 122, that importation of heroin into the Island is a very serious offence which as a matter of generality must be dealt with by a custodial sentence. 

9.        We have given very careful thought to the options open to us.  We see this as a turning point in the defendant's life.  It is true that he has never previously been given the opportunity of addressing his addiction under a probation order.  Under such an order he would be tested regularly and would therefore have every incentive to resist further temptation.  If, however, he goes back into prison he would have no such incentive and would lose the support of his family and work.  His position can be likened to that of being on a revolving door.  If he does not come off that door and overcome this addiction now, he faces potential ruination; and in all probability that will result in loss of his contact with his partner and his daughter.  We have decided, therefore, to give the defendant the chance to get off that revolving door.

10.      On both counts you will be placed on probation for 18 months, concurrent.  In addition to the standard conditions, the following conditions will be imposed; that you attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service for a period of 12 months as directed by the Probation Officer and comply with all treatment goals and testing as required by the service; in the last 6 months of the Probation Order you will submit to further drug testing as and when directed by the Probation Officer; you will attend any other programmes that the Probation Officer deems appropriate.  I must warn you, that this really is a last chance.  We are giving you an opportunity to deal with this awful addiction.  If you do not comply with the terms of the order, if you fail to resist temptation, you will be brought back before this Court where you will undoubtedly be sentenced to imprisonment. 

11.      We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Shahnowaz v AG [2007] JLR 221.

Rimmer and Ors v AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG v Abreu [2007] JRC122.