Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession - Class A.

[2013]JRC243

Royal Court

(Samedi)

29 November 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Paulo Jorge Gomes De Carvalho

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

Age:  35.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant, a self-confessed Class A drug abuser, secreted 3.21 grams of high purity (53%) cocaine at a mooring at Victoria Peer.  He collected the drug from its hiding place after disembarking from a fishing boat and was arrested leaving the dock some 10 minutes later.  Immediately prior to arrest he tried to throw the cocaine into the harbour, but the package fell short and was retrieved.  He denied all knowledge of the cocaine when interviewed by the Police. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea to possession at earliest opportunity.  Lack of previous convictions, though this was qualified by the fact that as an habitual drug user he had necessarily been in possession of Class A drugs in Jersey on numerous occasions. 

Previous Convictions

Minor motoring matters, otherwise none. 

Conclusions:

The offence passed the custody threshold.  The defendant had spent 2 months remanded in custody, the equivalent of a 3 month prison sentence.  This was his first time behind bars, and he had expressed to probation as a consequence a clear wish to change his life and put drug abuse behind him.  Had the Crown concluded that only an immediate custodial sentence could be justified, it would have moved for a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment.  As it was, he having served 2 months already, the Crown questioned the extent to which a further 100 days or so in prison would be either an effective punishment or a constructive way of addressing the defendant's offending.  Applying the guideline case of AG v Buesnel [1996] JLR 265, the Court should accede to the probation officer's proposal and place the defendant on probation for 9 months.  In addition, however, and in order to punish the defendant rather than merely assist him to reform, he should perform 100 hours' community service, as a direct alternative to custody. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Though in all possession of Class A drug cases the Court would need to consider a custodial sentence, the fact that the defendant had spent 2 months in prison meant that the Court could consider a more constructive disposal. 

Conclusions granted. 

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on a single count of possession of cocaine and, although in most cases of possession of Class A drug the Court will be looking carefully at the possibility of imposing a custodial sentence, on this occasion we have noted that you have in fact already served 2 months in custody and it gives us the opportunity of looking for a constructive sentence that the Crown has moved for. 

2.        In our view that is the right sentence to impose in this case and, accordingly, on the charge to which you have pleaded guilty, you are sentenced to 9 months' probation and you are ordered to complete 100 hours of community service and the alternative would have been 4 months' imprisonment.  You must perform that community service and if there is any problem in performing it, then you are liable to be brought back to this Court and sentenced again, and equally if you do not perform the Probation Order as directed by the probation officer, you are liable to be brought back and sentenced again for this offence, so it is important that you do perform the community service and do as directed by the probation officer. 

3.        We have looked at the reference.  You are of an age where you can tackle your problems; crossroads come at different times in different people's lives; you are at a crossroads and you should take this opportunity, because that is what it is, and use it constructively and I hope we do not see you in this Court again. 

4.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and other drug equipment. 

Authorities

AG-v-Buesnel [1996] JLR 265.

AG-v-Butler 2000/1A.

AG-v-Botting 2000/98.