Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC176

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th September 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Simonette Barrett (née King)

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 2^nd July, 2010, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant was the courier for the importation of 119 grams of heroin worth approximately £119,000 on the streets of Jersey and in respect of which four other defendants were sentenced by the Royal Court on the 27^th May 2010 (see AG-v-Peacock and Others [2010] JRC 101 for the full facts).  Barrett was not sentenced at the same time due to her advanced state of pregnancy at the time of the sentencing of co-defendants. 

She stated that she had been asked by an ex-boyfriend who was then an inmate at La Moye Prison, to import the drugs albeit she thought she was importing a quantity of cannabis.  She undertook the importation for her own financial gain having been offered the sum of £800.  She claimed she was under desperate financial strain at the time and needed the money to find accommodation for herself and her 11 year old daughter.  She did not in fact receive the funds.  Benefited by having air fare, accommodation paid for and also receiving £150 whilst in Jersey from one of the co-defendants. 

The Crown took as its starting point under the Rimmer Guidelines a sentence of 10 years imprisonment. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

A mature woman of previous good character.  Guilty plea albeit entered very late in the day and only after a co-accused had provided a statement of evidence against her.  Plea still of value as a contested trial had been avoided.  Expressed genuine remorse.  Assessed at being of low risk of re-offending and low risk of harm to public at large.  Had 11 year old daughter and 3 month old daughter.  The Crown's stance was that this did not give rise to exceptional circumstances justifying anything other than a custodial sentence.  She was a willing participant in a serious commercial drugs importation. 

Defence

Numerous references put before the Court speaking highly of her particularly as a mother.  Remorse; guilty plea; good character; had made a terrible mistake; only involved because of dire financial circumstances.  The defence suggested the "starting point" should be no more than 9 years and that the custody sentence should be no more than 3 years.  However, the defence sought mercy and sought a non-custodial sentence.  No need to send her to Prison.  Probation and community service available. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

No order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs as this made on the previous occasion. 

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Defendant to be sentenced for conspiracy to import heroin into Jersey.  The Court outlined facts.  Thought she was importing cannabis but well established that the mistaken belief as to the nature of the drug was not a defence.  The importation into the Island of heroin was a very serious offence, brings misery to addicts and allows evil men to make large profits from its importation.  Defendant prepared to bring drugs into the island for a profit of £800.  The Court's sentencing policy was absolutely clear and that unless there were exceptional circumstances such offending warranted an immediate custodial sentence.  The Court was faced with a young mother who belatedly entered a guilty plea.  Custodial sentence was right in principle and the Court would apply the usual rules.  In relation to the "starting point" noting the quantity of heroin involved the Crown was fully entitled to take a "starting point" of 10 years.  This was compared to the co-accused whose "starting point" was 9 years and the Court did not think there was any significant disparity between them.  However, as an act of mercy the Court would take the "starting point" as the same as the co-accused as being one of 9 years' imprisonment.  Against that "starting point" the Court considered the available mitigation.  Guilty plea was submitted late but entitled to credit.  Credit for good character.  Court read the various references and background reports and had given further credit for such matters.  The Court considered the approach as to whether pity should be shown to a young mother given the effect on her own children.  Against that approach the Court stated that the defendant should have thought about the effect upon her children before becoming involved and the Court had to have regard to this island's community and its families who would have been affected by the supply of heroin from such an importation.  A matter for the defendant as to whether she wishes to apply, in due course, for a transfer to a UK prison where she can be with her children.  This offence was so serious that custody was the right sentence. 

Sentence imposed:-

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You fall to be sentenced for one count of conspiring fraudulently to evade the prohibition on the importation of heroin into this Island.  The facts are that when the Police attended on 8^th March, 2009, at an address in Grouville, a large oval shaped package wrapped in cellophane was seized.  It was found to contain 119.32 grams of heroin which have a street value in the Island of £119,300.  Police enquiries established that you purchased a return ticket on the morning of 7^th March to fly with British Airways from Gatwick, with a return flight on the Sunday lunchtime.  Evidence was obtained from various members of the hotel where you booked accommodation which confirmed not only the making of that booking but also your arrival and departure.  The subsequent enquiries show that it was you who brought the package of drugs into the Island.  It is noted that you have said that you thought you were importing cannabis, but in fact it was heroin and it is well established that that does not amount to a defence to the charges. 

2.        The importation of heroin into this Island is a very serious offence and anyone who has seen the misery which follows from addiction to that drug, knows that.  Anyone who has been close to the drugs scene, and many who have not, are aware of the large profits which evil men make from this trade.  In this connection your participation in this particular importation was that you were prepared to bring drugs in for profit, namely for the sum of £800.  The Court's sentencing policy in these cases is absolutely clear.  It is well established that, absent exceptional circumstances, the Court will impose a custodial sentence.  Your counsel said that this case was about a young mother.  The Court thinks the case is about a young mother who has belatedly pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to import 119 grams of heroin with a street value of £119,000.  In the circumstances the Court thinks that a custodial sentence is right in principle and we are going to apply the usual rules in assessing what that sentence should be. 

3.        The first thing is the question of the starting point.  We have noted that from the quantity of drugs involved, the Crown would be well entitled to take a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment.  However, we have also noted that looking at the co-accused in this case, where a starting point of 9 years was fixed upon, we do not see that there is a significant distinction between you and the other co-accused, other than Peacock, although if there is a distinction it is in your importation of drugs for financial gain.  In the circumstances the Court is going to show an element of mercy in that connection and we take a starting point which is the same as that taken with most of your other co-accused, namely 9 years' imprisonment. 

4.        Against that starting point we now come to look at the mitigation which has been very fully advanced by your counsel and which the Court has taken very anxiously indeed into consideration.  The guilty plea came late, but we have nonetheless given substantial credit for it.  We have given substantial credit for what is your good character, you have two very minor convictions which we do not take into account, and we have read carefully the testimonials, the background report and everything that has been said in the papers which goes to your credit.  The Court has considered, carefully, the suggestion that priority should be given to the fact that as a mother, particularly as a young mother, a different approach should be taken, and the Court obviously notes, with sadness, that a long custodial sentence may have an impact on your children.  But against that one has to recognise that this is frequently the case and the fact is that an accused should think of these consequences before embarking on a course of criminal conduct.  In that balance also goes the amount of drugs and the damage which would be capable of being done to this community by this importation.  We have noted that you may apply for a transfer to a UK prison where mother and baby facilities may be available, but in any event and regardless of whether that application might be successful, the seriousness of the offence is such that a custodial sentence is right in principle. 

5.        In the circumstances you are sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 CA.

AG-v-Peacock and Others [2010] JRC 101.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.

AG-v-Walsh 1992/50.

AG-v-Godfrey [2003] JRC 083B.

AG-v-Nicolas and Charles (30^th May, 1991) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Stewart 1994/016.

AG-v-Garnham and Garnham 1994/186.

Extract from Thomas Current Sentencing Practice.

AG-v-County 2002/49.