Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - possession - Class A and B.

[2014]JRC048

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 February 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

John Dennis Vieira De Freitas

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 22^nd November, 2013, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Defendant arranged for 52g of heroin to be delivered from Amsterdam to the mailbox of his unsuspecting neighbour.  Retrieved parcel and divided it into 52 wraps of 1g, placing 1g in his pocket for personal use and intending to sell most of the remainder to make a profit.  ¼ g of cannabis found in his flat.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; cooperative; argued that the importation had been someone else's idea; antecedents not as bad as some drugs dealers; supportive family and girlfriend.

Previous Convictions:

15, including conviction in 2007 for two counts of supplying ecstasy and one count of supplying cannabis, for which he received a total of 4 ½ years.

Conclusions:

Total: 6½ years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order sought in the nominal amount of £1

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Confiscation Order made in the nominal sum of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant imported 52.04 grams of heroin from a supplier in Holland.  Recovering digital scales that he had hidden in nearby woods, he then prepared the drugs for wholesale distribution in the Island in bags of 1 gram each.  This equates to a wholesale value of between £10,600 and £21,200.  Once further divided into 50 bag deals of 0.05 grams each, the Jersey street value would have been £53,000. 

2.        The defendant has a previous conviction in 2007 for supplying 2000 ecstasy tablets, being in possession with intent to supply of 117 ecstasy tablets and supplying 1 kilo of cannabis for which he was sentenced to 4½ years, preventing him, tragically, from attending a course at Leeds Metropolitan University for which he had been accepted.  The Court then said that this was not the more normal case of an addict who sells in order to feed his habit; he was doing it for financial reward. 

3.        As Mr Gafoor says in his report on this case that notwithstanding this lengthy sentence, the defendant demonstrates a "blithe indifference" to the Island's drugs laws.  He describes the defendant as being well versed in the local illegal drugs distribution network.  The importation for which he is to be sentenced today was again arranged with a view to profit and, it seems, this offending is going to jeopardise a possible career as a quantity surveyor. 

4.        Following Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 a starting point of between 9 and 11 years is suggested for offences involving 50-100 grams of drugs.  Whilst the quantity here, 52 grams, is at the lower end of that band, the Crown has had regard the defendant's role and involvement in the drugs trade, which is towards the upper end of the scale.  Accordingly it seeks a starting point of 10 years reduced to 6½ years allowing for mitigation. 

5.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty and has been cooperative with the police.  It is clear that he is a man of intelligence and of some potential, with a good work ethic.  He has the support of his girlfriend and his parents, who are present in Court, and has produced a number of good references.  We have taken all of this mitigation and everything else that Advocate Landick has said to us into account. 

6.        As the Court of Appeal said in the case of Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 this is an evil trade which wreaks havoc in the lives of abusers and their families.  The lives which are blighted are often young lives.  The policy of the Court, which is well known to the defendant, is that offenders will receive condign punishment to mark the peculiarly heinous and antisocial nature of the crime of drug trafficking.

7.        We agree with the Crown where it says at paragraph 8 of the conclusions:-

"This offence was planned, organised and carried out by the defendant alone.  He was close to the main source of supply; and organised the importation.  On receiving the heroin the defendant himself then prepared the drugs for wholesale distribution within the island, packaging the drugs up into 1 gram deals." 

Furthermore he has a previous conviction for a serious offence of supplying drugs from which, as an intelligent man, he appears to have learnt nothing at all.  In all we can see no reason to depart from the conclusions of the Crown both in terms of the starting point and the sentence to be imposed. 

8.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 6½ years' imprisonment, on Count 2 there will be no separate penalty and on Count 3 you are sentenced to 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 6½ years' imprisonment. 

9.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

AG-v-De Freitas [2007] JRC 078.

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

Campbell Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.