Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC069

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

1^st April 2010

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Le Breton, Clapham, Liddiard, Fisher and Marett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

-v-

Rodolfo Silva Vieira

Lisa Marie Vieira

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 22^nd January, 2010, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Rodolfo Silva Vieira

2 counts of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Rodolfo Vieira and his wife Lisa Marie Vieira travelled to London over a weekend in early November 2009 to buy and use drugs.  Whilst there they purchased too many drugs to use between them during their trip, and ended up bringing the remainder back to Jersey for personal use. 

32 knotted packages of heroin weighing a total of 7.95 grams, and 16 packages of cocaine weighing a total of 3.39 grams, were packaged up by Rodolfo Vieira, after which Mrs Vieira concealed them internally for the trip.  The local street value of the heroin was £7,950 while the cocaine was worth £270.

The defendants were subsequently stopped as they arrived at Jersey Airport.  When questioned by customs officers, they initially gave a false story, saying that they had attended a funeral on the mainland.  However, traces of drugs were found in their luggage, and an x-ray showed that Mrs Vieira was likely to be carrying packages internally. 

At the time of the x-ray, Mrs Vieira became upset and admitted the importation, confirming that her husband had wrapped both sets of drugs first.  She described the drugs as "just a couple of bags for personal use," before continuing, "I'm not a dirty smack head.  I've got a decent job".

Following an initial period of bail, both defendants were remanded into custody pending sentence.  At sentencing, the Crown invited the Court to adopt a starting point of 7 years on each count. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, addict, drugs for personal use, 2 children with his co-accused, good work record. 

Previous Convictions:

Previous conviction for the importation of a small personal dose of heroin in 2004 for which he was fined £200.

Conclusions:

Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Benefits and Confiscation Order to be adjourned for a period of 2 months.

No recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court accepted that the imported drugs were intended for personal use.  Given the relatively modest amount of drugs involved, and the personal circumstances of the defendants, the Court felt able to order a non-custodial sentence. 

For both defendants the Court ordered 240 hours community service concurrent on each Count, together with 12 months' probation (confirming that the alternative was a 2 year sentence of imprisonment).  

Count 1:	240 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order.
Count 2:	240 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order, concurrent.

Total:  240 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Benefits and Confiscation Order to be adjourned for a period of 3 months.

Lisa Marie Vieira

2 counts of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Vieira above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, low risk of re-offending, addict, no previous drugs convictions, 2 children now living with her mother, good work record. 

Previous Convictions:

Bad record for offences of dishonesty, although no previous drugs offences. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Benefits and Confiscation Order to be adjourned for a period of 2 months.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

See Vieira above.

Count 1:	240 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order.
Count 2:	240 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order, concurrent.

Total:  240 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order, equivalent to 2 years, imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Benefits and Confiscation Order to be adjourned for a period of 3 months.

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for R. Vieira.

Advocate J. M. Grace for L. Vieira.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are both heroin addicts who went off to buy 7.95 grams of heroin and 3.39 grams of cocaine for your own use.  We do accept that it was for your own use but nevertheless you took this decision knowing that you were the carers of your two children. 

2.        We have listened carefully to the mitigation which has been put forward.  We accept that you have been in regular employment, you have pleaded guilty and there is much mitigation to be put on your behalf.  Nevertheless were it not for one factor, you would be going to prison.  But the fact is that you do have two young children aged nine and four and if you both remain in prison they will be the people who suffer.  It is only unfortunate that you did not think of that before you embarked on what you did.  Your Advocates have now prayed in aid the need to look after your children but you did not do much of that when you left to go and buy this heroin and left them here and exposed them to the risk of having to do without you.  Nevertheless, we do think that exceptionally in this case, given the modest amount of the drugs and all the other mitigating circumstances, we can just proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence but I must tell you that was a majority decision of the Court.  Two of the Jurats felt that despite that, a prison sentence was required.  The others felt that you have already served the equivalent of 6 months and perhaps you have learnt your lesson and can start looking forward now.

3.        The sentence of the Court is that each of you will do 240 hours' Community Service, concurrent on the two counts.  You are also both placed on probation for 12 months' and that means you will have to do exactly what the probation officer tells you.  We say that the equivalent sentence we had in mind was one of 2 years.  We appreciate that is not an exact conversion but nevertheless, we cannot justify a sentence of less than 2 years for these offences. 

4.        It is now up to you.  We are giving you both a very considerable chance but if you do not turn up for the community service or if you re-offend or if you do not do exactly what the probation office tells you, then you will be brought back here and at that stage you will then be sentenced for these offences all over again and the only option then available to the Court will be to send you to prison.  That is the sentence of the Court. 

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

Authorities

Rimmer and Others [2001] 373.

Valler-v-AG [2002] JLR 383.

Shahnowaz-v-AG [2007] JLR 221.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JCA 145.