Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC206

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27^th October 2009

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats de Veulle, Le Brocq, Newcombe, Fisher and Kerley.

The Attorney General

-v-

Helen Jeanette Bowler

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

2 counts of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 2 and 3).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drugs, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 4 and 5).

Age:  31.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Thursday 4^th December, 2008, the accused was in telephone contact with three males, two of whom are known heroin addicts.  At 11:30am all three men went to her flat in St Helier.  The first to emerge, two minutes after he entered, was stopped by police officers.  He was asked to open his mouth, which he did, but he refused to lift up his tongue.  When asked "Have you just swallowed it?" he replied "yes I did."  This relates to Count 2.

The officers entered the accused's flat and found Bowler and another man in the kitchen.  She was searched and found in possession of a blue plastic wrap containing 26 milligrams of heroin (Count 4) and £200 in cash.  A third man was found in the sitting room and was seen to put a small white object in his mouth which he swallowed.  The supply of this heroin by Bowler relates to Count 3.  Later, officers searching Flat 1 located a blister pack of diazepam containing six tablets (Count 5). 

During interview Bowler denied supplying drugs to the three men.  She implied the heroin found in her possession had been planted on her by the police.  She admitted she had bought fifteen diazepam tablets from someone on the street because she had been having trouble sleeping. 

Three days prior to this, on 1^st December, 2008, she had been sentenced in relation to other drug matters.  On 19^th December, 2007, Bowler and her then boyfriend Mark Andre Such travelled to Oxford where Such purchased 17.38 grams of heroin.  The drugs were wrapped and posted to false names at three Jersey addresses provided by the accused.  Customs intercepted the packages.  The street value of the drugs was around £17,380 and the purchase price in England was estimated at £780.

In interview Bowler denied all knowledge of the parcels and their contents.  When told her fingerprints had been found on paper used to wrap the heroin, the wrapping paper and jiffy bags she implied she had been "fitted up."  During a search of her flat, officers located five diazepam tablets on the bedside table and 19 diazepam tablets in her handbag beside the bed.  On arrest she denied they were hers but pleaded guilty to possession of four tablets.

Such pleaded guilty to the importation offence while Bowler was convicted after a trial.  Bowler was sentenced to 240 hours' Community Service for the importation offences and for the possession of diazepam to 40 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.

Details of Mitigation:

Sole carer for ten year old son.  No remorse as she maintained her innocence.

Previous Convictions:

2 minor convictions for 4 offences, 2 drugs related convictions.  December 08 as referred to above.

Conclusions:

Starting point 4 years.

Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of Community Service Order

Community Service Order discharged.

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach sentence to run consecutive to current Indictment.

Total:  4½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of Community Service order

Community Service Order discharged.

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach sentence to run consecutive to current Indictment.

Total:  3½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

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

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

 

THE commissioner:

1.        On 17^th August, 2009, the defendant was found guilty following a trial of 2 counts of supplying a small quantity of heroin.  The offences took place on 4^th December, 2008, just three days after she had been sentenced exceptionally to 240 hours' community service for her, admittedly small, part in the importation of 17.38 grams of heroin into the Island.  On 4^th December she was also found in possession of 26 milligrams of heroin and 6 diazepam tablets, to which she has pleaded guilty. 

2.        At the time of these offences she was the sole carer of her ten year old son who is presently being cared for by his grandmother.  It might be thought that having just avoided a custodial sentence she would have learnt her lesson.  When sentencing her on 1^st December, 2008, the Superior Number said this and quoting from the judgment:-

"Miss Bowler, we have already said that we accept that you had a very limited involvement in this.  This whole transaction brought no benefit to you at all.  You simply behaved as you did to assist your boyfriend and in fact it brought no real benefit in the sense that they were matters he could have dealt with quite satisfactorily himself.  So this was a very limited and unusual involvement.  In the circumstances we think the Rimmer guidelines simply have no application.  In mitigation we have listened to all that your Advocate has said.  You are the sole carer of your son, we have read carefully the contents of the various reports and letters and references and of course you have a comparatively minor list of previous convictions.  In all the circumstances we are persuaded that this is an exceptional case and we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.

The sentence we impose on each of the 3 counts is one of Community Service of 240 hours, these to run concurrently, and we say that the prison sentence we would have had in mind as an alternative is one of 18 months.  On the Second Indictment we impose a Community Service Order of 40 hours also to be concurrent, so that is a total of 240 hours.  You must realise Miss Bowler, that you must carry out this Community Service, you must turn up when you are told and you must carry out the work, because if you do not or if you re-offend, then you will be brought back here, and of course, if you are brought back here then you will really be at substantial risk of going to prison because this Community Service is the Court giving you an alternative to prison.  This is your chance, so take advantage of it.  We hope very much that we will not see you here for breaching the Community Service Order."

3.        The fact that the defendant could offend so quickly and thus put the care of her only son at risk is a stark illustration to us of the highly addictive nature of heroin and how it destroys the lives of those who succumb to it and the devastating effect it has on their families, as illustrated to us by the moving letter we received from your mother.  It emphasises and enforces the need for this Court to maintain its firm policy when dealing with such offences. 

4.        Having pleaded not guilty, not accepting the verdict of the Court and thus having no remorse and taking into account the aggravating factor of your re-offending so quickly, there is, as the Crown have said, little mitigation.  You do not have a good record.  As Mr Haines has said your mitigation really lies in your personal circumstances.  You do have a supportive mother and we note that your son does visit you regularly at the prison and that you are, and have been for some time now drugs free within the prison.  We note that you have completed or have started a twelve week drugs course and commend you for the work you have done raising money for charity.  We of course also have taken into account everything else written within the reports before us.

5.        The Crown seek a starting point of 4 years for the recent offences relying on the case of AG-v-Davey [2005] JRC 125.  We have to say that we did not find that case helpful.  We accept that the amounts supplied here were very low, two 50 bags containing 52-100 milligrams of heroin in total.  There would appear to be no cases in the Royal Court involving such small amounts.  Mr Haines has referred us to the case of AG-v-Whitehouse [2003] JRC 200 both in the Royal Court and the Court of Appeal in which a range of 18 months, after a guilty plea, for supply to the prison of small amounts of heroin was considered appropriate.

6.        We do not think that starting points are appropriate in cases of this kind.  In our view the appropriate range for the supplying of heroin in these small quantities is one of 18 months to 2 years following a trial.  In this case we regard the upper part of that range as being appropriate bearing in mind the aggravating factor that these offences were committed so soon after the earlier offences.

7.        Therefore Miss Bowler you are sentenced as follows; on count 2 you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, on count 3 you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, concurrent, on count 4 you are sentenced to 2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent and on count 5 to 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 2 years' imprisonment on that Indictment.  In relation to the earlier offences we discharge the Community Service Order and we sentence you as follows: on each of counts 1-3 to 18 months' imprisonment, each of those to be served concurrently with the other, on count 4; 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total for those offences of 18 months' imprisonment; those sentences to run consecutively with the current offences, making a total sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

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

Authorities

Rimmer and Others [2001] JLR 373.

AG-v-Such and Bowler [2008] JRC 209.

AG-v-Davey [2005] JRC 125.

AG-v-Whitehouse [2003] JRC 200.

Whitehouse-v-AG [2004] JRC 064.

AG-v-Taylor 2000/69.