Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC095

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

6^th May 2011

The Attorney General

-v-

John Luis Gouveia

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

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Police officers stopped the defendant in order to search him under Article 19 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  As the search was being conducted the defendant removed a wrap from his right sock and attempted to put it in his mouth.  A struggle ensued and the defendant managed to put the wrap in his mouth.  After several minutes the officers managed to recover the wrap.  On arrest the defendant said "it's only six bags, that's not intent to supply.  They are for me...I know I am stupid, I take it to forget, it stops my mind working overtime, I know the kids should come first".  He continued "I thought it was in the other sock that's why I gave you the shoe so easily, stupid boy John, stupid boy...I'm sorry guys; I had to do that because if my situation". 

The wrap contained six smaller wraps and weighed a total of 521 mg.  A condom filed with urine (which tested positive for opiates) was also found attached to the defendant's waistband. 

In interview the defendant said he had bought six wraps of heroin for the price of four on tick from a man he refused to name.  He denied that he intended to supply the heroin and claimed that the urine was to show the Alcohol and Drug Service how someone might fool a drugs test. 

Breach of Probation and Community Service Orders

The defendant was involved in an affray over an alleged drug debt during which the defendant produced a knife sharpening steel that he had about his person.  The defendant and his co-defendant shouted racial abuse at each other and made threats. 

The drugs charges resulted from a search warrant executed at the defendant's home.  10.3 grams of cannabis resin and 66 mg of heroin were recovered. 

On 15^th October, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to 12 months' Probation with a Treatment Order.  He was also given 100 hours' community service in respect of the affray and 40 hours' community service for each of the drugs offences, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the sentence for affray.  The equivalent sentences were 4 months' imprisonment and 7 days' imprisonment respectively. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; difficult family situation; used heroin as a coping mechanism. 

Previous Convictions:

Seven convictions for fifteen offences, nine of which are drug related. 

Conclusions:

Breach of Probation

First Indictment:

Third Indictment:

Total:  9 months' and 2 weeks' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

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

Advocate D. Gilbert for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Gouveia, you are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains counts of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and possession of the Class A drug heroin, that is a simple possession and not possession with intent to supply.  As a result of the counts on that Indictment you are in breach of a previous Order of the Court and you fall to be sentenced on the offence of affray as well. 

2.        The Crown has moved for conclusions which the Court thinks are right.  The most serious of these offences is the case of possession of heroin and we apply the test set out in AG-v-Buesnel [1996] JLR 265 where this Court said this:-

"In most cases, possession of a Class A drug, even if the quantity is very small, should attract punishment.  Whether that punishment involves a custodial sentence or the imposition of a fine or community service order will depend upon the particular circumstances of the offence and of the offender.  If the quantity of drugs cannot be described as small, or other aggravating factors are present, a custodial sentence should usually be imposed."

In this case there is the aggravating factor that you are in breach of a previous order of the Court and the quantity involved is such that a custodial sentence is, in our view, inevitable.  Furthermore, the background report and the drug and alcohol report makes it plain that no non custodial order is recommended.  The Court thinks that the conclusions of the Crown are absolutely correct. 

3.        Your Counsel has said everything that could be said on your behalf and pointed out the personal mitigation points which apply and we have taken account of those.  But what they do emphasise is that the consequences of heroin addiction are dramatic in the personal life of the person who is addicted and you simply must tackle that addiction otherwise your life is going to get worse and worse.  Therefore it is pleasing to hear that you are seeing the drug counsellor weekly in prison and, indeed, we think that the time which is spent in prison can only be to your advantage because you will get that support which is available to you. 

4.        Accordingly on Count 1 of the Indictment you are sentenced to 2 weeks' imprisonment; on Count 2 to 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 6 months and 2 weeks.  On the matters under the breach of probation, the First Indictment of affray, you are sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment, which is to be served consecutively to the present Indictment.  There will be no further penalties on possession of cannabis and possession of heroin charges, and therefore you are sentenced in total to 9 months' and 2 weeks' imprisonment. 

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

Authorities

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

AG-v-Gouveia and Uddin [2010] JRC 189.

AG-v-Buesnel [1996] JLR 265.