Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC173

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27^th August 2009

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner and Jurats King, Morgan, Liddiard, Georgelin, Fisher and Bullen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jose Carlos Pereira Bastos

Jose Nelson Pereira Pinto

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 5^th June, 2009, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Jose Carlos Pereira Bastos

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).

Age:  47.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 29^th January, 2009, police officers attended at the Full Service Centre, St Aubins Road, St Helier where Pinto was a forecourt attendant and car valet.  As they arrived he was at the rear of the premises cleaning a vehicle.  Pinto was detained and searched at the scene, and found in possession of utensils used for injecting heroin and a razor blade.

He was then escorted to his home address, 11 Vauvert Court, which is next door to the Full Service Centre.  In the bedroom a carrier bag was found with holes cut out of it, consistent with the making of deal bags for the supply of heroin.  Pinto's mobile phone was seized and he was taken to Rouge Bouillon Police Station.

A search was also undertaken at 11 Vauvert Court.  On a shelf above the computer in the bedroom a small package wrapped in a cut out piece of carrier bag was found to contain 13.92 grams of heroin, with a concentration of 30% by weight of diarmorphine.

Later the same day uniformed police attended at premises known as Valnad, La Grande Route de La Cote, St Clement, to execute a search warrant.  Bastos was discovered at the address and was detained.  A search of his person at the time recovered a large silver foil package, which contained 24.8 grams of the drug with a concentration of 29% by weight of diarmorphine.

In interview, each changed their respective stories throughout.  Both accused the other of being the main organiser.  What is beyond dispute is that Pinto had 13.92 grams of heroin, which could make 278 deal bags, with a potential street value of £13,920.  Bastos was found in possession of 24.80 grams, potentially 496 bags worth up to £24,800.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, some remorse, physical disabilities.

Previous Convictions:

A previous drug conviction from some years ago.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 9 years.  5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Costs in the sum of £20 sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Recommendation for deportation ordered.

Costs not awarded.

Jose Nelson Pereira Pinto

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3).

Age:  33.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Bastos above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Starting point 8 years.

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Costs in the sum of £150 sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	3½ years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Deportation not recommended.

Costs not awarded.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for Bastos.

Advocate M. W. Cook for Pinto.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        These defendants were both found in possession of quantities of heroin, 24 grams in the case of Bastos and 13 grams in the case of Pinto.  Both have suggested that the other was the organiser and have given conflicting stories.  The Court can proceed only on the indisputable facts of the quantities of the drug found in the possession of each.

2.        The Court accepts that some of the heroin would have been for personal use.  Part of it would however have found its way into the hands of others.  The Court has stated on many occasions that heroin is a vicious and addictive drug and that those who trade in it must expect to receive severe punishment. 

3.        The Crown Advocate has taken a starting point of 9 years' imprisonment in the case of Bastos and 8 years in the case of Pinto.  We agree that those are the appropriate starting points.  We turn to deal with each defendant separately. 

4.        Counsel for Bastos has reminded us that the guilty plea was given at an early stage and that his client has accepted responsibility for what he did and shown some remorse.  The inconsistencies in his accounts are said to be due to problems of interpretation.  Counsel has also drawn our particular attention to the physical disabilities of the defendant arising from an accident at work and also possibly from the misuse of drugs.

5.        Bastos, the Court has taken careful account of the submissions made by your Advocate and is going to temper justice in your case with mercy.  We are going to reduce the conclusions and you are sentenced, on the Count to which you have pleaded guilty, to 4 years' imprisonment.  We are going to recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor that you should be deported from Jersey.  We are satisfied that special arrangements could be made if it were necessary for you to return for a limited period in order to give evidence in your case against your employer.

6.        Pinto, you have pleaded guilty to the Indictment and we take that into account in moderating slightly the conclusions of the Crown Advocate.  You are sentenced on Count 1 of the Indictment to 3½ years' imprisonment and on Count 3 to 3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3½ years' imprisonment. 

7.        We turn to the question of deportation.  Before deciding whether to recommend deportation to the Lieutenant-Governor, the Court has to ask itself two questions.  First, is your continued presence in the Island detrimental to the interests of the community and secondly, would a recommendation for deportation be disproportionate having regard to the interest of other innocent persons?  We are satisfied on the first limb that those who trade in heroin make it difficult for the Court to conclude that their continued presence in Jersey is other than detrimental to the interests of the community.  We are satisfied on the first limb.  So far as the second limb is concerned, we have found the matter to be very finely balanced.  You have lived in Jersey for a number of years and you have been with your girlfriend for four years and we have read her letter very carefully.  We think on balance, that the interests of your girlfriend and her nephew outweigh, at the moment, the desirability of deporting you from the Island.  We want you to understand that if you were to offend again the balance might very well tip in the other direction.  We will not make a recommendation for deportation in your case.

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

9.        No order for costs made.

Authorities

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JCA 145.