Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC234

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

22^nd December 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Daniel James Vibert

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

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Letter containing 530 milligrams of heroin intercepted by customs officers.  A controlled delivery undertaken to the address on the envelope and the property kept under surveillance.  The defendant was seen entering address which contained five flats.  On the next day when the controlled delivery was made he was then seen entering and leaving taking with him the replica envelope.  Some initial fabrication but then he admitted that he had sent £20 to a contact in the UK who had then sent the heroin in the postal system to an address supplied by Vibert.  Importation was for personal use.  Street value £500. 

The Crown took a "starting point" of 7 years' imprisonment and noted that there was a degree of sophistication used in the method of importation in this case as compared to for example the importation method used in the case of AG-v-Goldsmith [2010] JRC 152.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty plea and cooperation, making appropriate admissions.  In accordance with the case of Shahnowaz substantial mitigation was available as importation for personal use.  Appalling criminal record but only the second offence for drugs and first offence involving a Class A drug.  Assessed as being on a cusp between a medium and high risk of re-offending.  Benefit of youth still aged only 19.  The Crown had considered the provisions of Article 4(2)(a) and (c) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 and concluded that only a custodial sentence was justified. 

The Defence

The Defence questioned whether the importation was that sophisticated.  The case involved a small amount of heroin for personal use.  Had spent the equivalent of 4½ months on remand and had used that time very constructively and had continued with good effort since being granted bail.  Had the benefit of a guilty plea, admissions, remorse and regret, age and had detoxified on remand.  Suggested community service would be the appropriate sentence to support and encourage the improvement he had made.  Willing to undergo random drug testing. 

Previous Convictions:

Appalling record with 27 convictions for 202 offences including numerous motoring, dishonesty, public order, escaping from lawful custody, contempt of court and possession of cannabis. 

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court has said on many occasions that the importation of heroin even for personal use was a serious offence.  This was emphasised in Shahnowaz.  The Court took the starting point of 7 years as a matter of the Court's policy and took into account the importation was only a small amount for personal use.  Considered whether an alternative to the custodial sentence.  The Court was very much encouraged by what was said in the Social Enquiry Report and in the letters before the Court.  Experience showed that those who had come off heroin sometimes relapsed.  The Court was mindful of the risk and therefore was going to impose a 12 month Probation Order with a condition of a Treatment Order for 12 months and the sole purpose of the Treatment Order was so that random drugs tests could be undertaken.  The Court wished that this was seen as sympathy and encouraging him.  In normal circumstances a sentence of 15 months' youth detention would be the right sentence.  In addition the Court imposed a Community Service Order of 100 hours.  A warning was given as to the consequences in the event of him failing to comply with the Orders or re-offending. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

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

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

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Vibert, you are here to be sentenced for importing 530 grams of heroin.  The Court has said on many occasions, and I take very much the language the Court used in the case of AG-v-Goldsmith [2010] JRC 152, that the importation of heroin even for personal consumption is a serious offence and that is emphasised by the Court of Appeal in the case of Shahnowaz-v-AG [2007] JLR 221.  That case does however make the point that where the consumption for heroin is for personal use, that is a matter of mitigation away from a starting point.  So we do take the Shahnowaz starting point of 7 years which we are required to do as a matter of law, but we then take very much into account that this is a small amount that you have imported and it was for personal use. 

2.        Taking into account all the mitigation which is available to you and in particular, having regard to the Criminal Justice Young Offenders (Jersey) Law 1994, the Court is satisfied that we do not have to deal with this matter with a custodial sentence today and that it is possible to deal with it in another way, despite the seriousness of the offence.  We are very much encouraged by what has been said in the background report and indeed in your own letter, but our experience tells us that those who come off heroin sometimes relapse and it will need a continued and concerted effort by you to make sure you do not do so. 

3.        Because there is that risk the Court is going to impose a treatment order for 12 months and the purpose of the treatment order is simply to enable random tests to be made so that that will be a support to you, an encouragement to you, to stay off this drug.  You have to be sentenced for the offence which you have committed and in normal circumstances the Crown's conclusions of 15 months' youth detention would have been entirely right.  Taking into account all the mitigation which is available to you and the time served on remand in particular, we propose to order that you perform 100 hours of community service.  If you do not perform it, if there is any difficulty in the performance of that order or in relation to the treatment order, if there is any breach of the treatment order, you will be back in this Court for sentence for these offences again, so take the chance that has been given to you and do not allow that to happen. 

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

Authorities

Criminal Justice Young Offenders (Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-Goldsmith [2010] JRC 152.

Shahnowaz-v-AG [2007] JLR 221.

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.