Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - assisting another to obtain the benefit of drug trafficking - Class A and B - contempt of court.

[2013]JRC215

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 November 2013

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats le Cornu and Milner.

The Attorney General

-v-

Teresa Fatima Goncalves De Bairos Figueira

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

2 counts of:	Assisting another to obtain the benefit of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 37(1)(a) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 (Counts 1 and 2).
1 count of:	Contempt of Court (Count 3).

Age:  48.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant and a co-accused were arrested in December 2005 following the execution of a drugs search warrant at their then home address.  A commercial quantity of heroin, a personal amount of cannabis and cash in the sum of £1,800 were seized.  The defendant and her then co-accused were charged with drug trafficking offences and presented before the Magistrate's Court where she was granted bail on certain conditions including not to leave the Island without permission.  Following a number of Court appearances she then failed to appear in February 2006.  Her arrest was ordered. 

The criminal case lay dormant until June 2013 when the defendant was arrested upon her return to the Island.  She was presented to the Court and remanded in custody.  She was subsequently charged with contempt of Court for absconding (Count 3). 

She was subject to further interviewing under caution in relation to the financial aspects of the original investigation.  This resulted in the two Article 37 offences being charged against her (Counts 1 and 2). 

The investigation disclosed that over a 17 week period the defendant had transferred, by way of 8 separate payments, the total sum of £14,900 in cash to Portugal via Girobank.  It had not been possible to trace to whom or where the funds had settled (Count 1). 

The investigation also revealed that the defendant had opened a bank account into which cash payments totalling £5,150 had been made for which there did not appear to be any legitimate source (Count 2). 

For providing this assistance, the defendant had her rent paid for a period of 17 weeks at a rate of £170 per week.  The defendant confirmed that the monies were not hers and belonged to another person, a male, who was currently serving a 7 year prison sentence in Madeira.  She declined to identify this individual. 

The Crown did not proceed with the original drug trafficking offences as they did not meet the evidential test against this defendant. 

The Crown contended that given the Royal Court's policy on the part played by those who money launder the proceeds of drug trafficking that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. 

In relation to the contempt of court count the defendant had been at liberty for some 7 years and had not returned with the intention of handing herself in but because she thought that the Social Security Department owed her money.  The Crown did not see any distinction between defendants who absconded and were returned on an arrest warrant and those who returned voluntarily. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas but not co-operative with the police.  Did not have the benefit of youth.  Limited criminal record but none for drug trafficking or money laundering but some for dishonesty.  She was assessed at being low risk of re-offending. 

The Defence

Not a sophisticated woman.  Under the influence of her then co-accused whom she had not seen since 2005.  The enterprise was not of long duration nor large sums involved.  She had not committed any further offences since 2005.  She had been working hard in London.  She was low risk of re-offending.  Guilty pleas entered once charges had been settled.  She had co-operated to the extent that she could with the authorities.  Accepted that a custodial sentence was inevitable.  Did not dispute the correctness of the Crown's conclusions. 

Previous Convictions:

Larceny, fraudulent conversion, common assault and motoring. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total: 22 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £8,040 and the Viscount to realise realisable property held by the defendant to satisfy the Confiscation Order.

Discharge of the saisie judiciare.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant assisted another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking by sending £14,900 via the Girobank over a 17 week period in 2005.  She also received £5,150 in cash paid into her local account.  In total she was paid over £20,050.  The prosecution has accepted that she was not involved in drug dealing and her reward for helping was that her rent was paid over the said period in the sum of £2,890.  Following her and her then co-accused being charged in 2005 she had fled the Island whilst on bail and was only arrested once she returned in June 2013.  The prosecution had accepted that there was insufficient evidence to support the original drug charges and has proceeded on the basis that they have no interest in those drugs.  The Crown has substituted the money laundering charges.  The defendant was not facing drug trafficking offences but the Court had said often that it took a very serious view of money laundering.  The Court quoted from AG-v-McFeat & Ors. 

Conclusions granted. 

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

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You assisted another person to obtain the benefit of his drug trafficking by transferring some £14,900, in cash, via Girobank to Portugal.  This was over a period of some 17 weeks back in 2005.  You also received £5,150 in cash into a bank account you had opened locally, so we are looking at just over £20,000 in all.  Now the Prosecution accept that you yourself were not involved in any drug dealing and that your reward for helping in this way was that your rent was to be paid over the period.  This would have come to some £2,890. 

2.        When you and your then partner were charged with drug offences in 2005 you both fled whilst on bail and you were only arrested when you returned to the Island in June of this year.  The Prosecution have accepted that there is insufficient evidence to support the drug charges and, as we say, we proceed on the basis that you had no involvement in the drug trafficking, but they have instead substituted these money-laundering charges. 

3.        Now you may not be facing a drug trafficking charge but the Court has said, often, that it takes a very serious view of money laundering.  In the case of AG-v-McFeat, Smyth and Howard [2013] JRC 137 the Court said this:-

"The part played in laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking is a vital part of the overall drug trafficking enterprise and even where offenders do not know the full details of what is involved, where they deal with the proceeds having suspicion that it is the proceeds of trafficking, they must expect serious punishment."

4.        Now we have taken into account in mitigation the fact that you pleaded guilty very early to these offences and that, although you have minor previous convictions, there is nothing remotely similar to this.  We have read carefully the background report and we have listened to what your advocate has to say.  But we think that the conclusions of the Crown are correct given the offending you have committed. 

5.        The sentence on Count 1; 18 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 18 months' imprisonment, those are concurrent.  On Count 3, which is the contempt of court for not surrendering to bail, there is a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment but this must be consecutive in order to mark the fact that this was a completely separate offence.  The total sentence is therefore 22 months' imprisonment. 

6.        As to deportation, through your advocate you have said you do not oppose this.  Nevertheless we must consider whether the grounds are made out.  The first limb is satisfied.  In view of the seriousness of this offending your continued presence in the Island would be detrimental.  As to the second limb, your only connection with the Island is that one of your adult sons lives here.  But you of course have not been here since 2005.  In the circumstances we see no reason not to make a deportation recommendation. 

Authorities

Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988.

AG-v-Fagan [2005] JRC 031.

Fowler-v-AG [2007] JRC 044.

AG-v-McFeat, Smyth and Howard [2013] JRC 137.

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

AG-v-Donachie [2012] JRC 019.

AG-v-Stirton [2012] JRC 108.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.