Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC152

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20^th August 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Steven Alan Goldsmith

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

Having returned to Jersey by air after a short visit to London, the accused was stopped by customs officers and searched.  When the officers examined his mouth he was gagging and appeared to be swallowing.  Subsequent X-ray scans of his abdomen indicated the presence of foreign objects concealed internally.  These objects later passed through his digestive system.  Two packages containing heroin were recovered. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; fully co-operative with the police; expressed remorse, troubled and abusive childhood; exemplary work history; personal use; detoxed from illicit drugs whilst on remand in custody. 

Previous Convictions:

Jersey: 1987, 1991, 2002 and 2004 - possession of a controlled drug - cannabis.

Other offences namely minor motoring offences, offences against the person and public order offences. 

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court has said many times that the importation of any drug, even for personal use, is very serious...You are entitled to a significant reduction from the starting point for personal use...Taking into account all mitigation available to you, the proper sentence would be 12 months.  You would be released in 4 months with no support.  The Court feels the more constructive and logical sentence to be as follows:-

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced for the offence of being knowingly concerned in the evasion of the prohibition on the importation of heroin and you brought into the Island, secreted inside you, 1½ grams of heroin which was for personal use. 

2.        As the Court has said on many occasions importation of heroin, even for personal consumption, is a serious offence and that is emphasised by the Court of Appeal decision in Shahnowaz-v-AG [2007] JLR 221 which is in the bundle which we have and which we are, of course, bound to apply.  That case of Shahnowaz does make the point that where the consumption of heroin is for personal use that is a matter of mitigation away from the starting point.  I just wish to add this - the rationale for the starting point for the offence is that the amount of drugs is an important feature in assessing the gravamen of the offence of importation where the accused is supplying drugs to others, that is clearly so because more drugs means more damage to others.  It follows that where one is faced with importation for personal use, as here, we are entitled to take that as a very significant feature in mitigation indeed, and indeed that is reflected by the Crown in its conclusions. 

3.        We have therefore taken 7 years, in accordance in Shahnowaz, as the starting point and taking into account, as I say, the importation was for personal use, and all the mitigation which is available, your guilty plea, your co-operation with the police, the personal circumstances including your upbringing and generally having regard to all the material before the Court, we think therefore there would be a proper reduction in sentence from that starting point to one of 12 months' imprisonment.  At that point however, recognising that 4 months have been served already, you would be due for release in a further 4 months, without support and with a greater personal challenge than perhaps is fair to you, and on the other hand the Court's policy on heroin importation is clear. 

4.        In the unusual circumstances of this case we think that the more constructive and the fairer sentence is to impose a sentence of 180 hours' Community Service with an alternative of 12 months' in custody and in addition, there will be a Probation Order for 12 months coupled with a treatment order for 12 months. 

5.        I note that the action plan of the Probation Service includes liaison with the Alcohol and Drug Service regarding progress with the treatment order, referral if necessary to Sillkworth Lodge, assistance in gaining employment, and it appears from the reference that you have that lined up already, and assessment for suitability for the "Offending is not the only Choice" course.  The Court would suggest that Probation might like to give consideration to paragraph 9.2 of the Psychological Report with a view to seeing whether any assistance might be made available to you for that as well.  As part of the treatment order that means that you will attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service for a period of 1 year; you are required to abstain from all illegal and non-prescribed opiates which will be confirmed by random and routine drug tests and you will comply with the treatment goals agreed with the Alcohol and Drug Service which may involve the taking of Naltrexone  If you do not comply with any of the conditions of the Probation Service or the treatment order then you are liable to be brought back or if you do not perform the community service then you are liable to be brought back before this Court and sentenced again for this offence. 

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

Authorities

Shahnowaz-v-AG [2007] JLR 221.

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG-v-Gouveia [2008] JRC 083.

AG-v-Abreu [2007] JRC 122.