Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A - larceny as a servant - motoring.

[2015]JRC198C

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 September 2015

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Nicolle, Kerley, Blampied, Grime, Thomas and Milner.

The Attorney General

-v-

Brandon Lee Volante-Nobrega

Nadim Hassen Teixeira

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 14^th August, 2015, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Brandon Lee Volante-Nobrega

First Indictment

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Teixeira allowed his flat to be used by a third party as the delivery address for 27 MDMA tablets purchased from a website (Count 1). Customs intercepted the package and arrested Teixeira who made admissions.  On his mobile telephone they found evidence of him asking his aunt to mind the parcel if it arrived during his absence; and evidence of him offering use of his address to Volante-Nobrega to import 50 MDMA tablets which were never delivered (Second Indictment).  Teixeira was to be paid in cash and with some tablets.  Volante-Nobrega admitted that he was the organiser of the unsuccessful importation and that he intended to sell his share of the consignment to individual users.

Whilst on bail Teixeira overturned his car whilst carrying a passenger, and stole parking pay cards worth £167 from his employer.

Details of Mitigation:

Youth, character, family support.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

Starting point 7½ years' imprisonment.  2 years and 2 months' youth detention.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  312 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention, together with a 12 month Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Nadim Hassen Teixeira

First Indictment

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Third Indictment

1 count of:

Larceny as a servant (Count 1).

Fourth Indictment

1 count of:

Driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1).

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Teixeira allowed his flat to be used by a third party as the delivery address for 27 MDMA tablets purchased from a website (Count 1).  Customs intercepted the package and arrested Teixeira who made admissions.  On his mobile telephone they found evidence of him asking his aunt to mind the parcel if it arrived during his absence; and evidence of him offering use of his address to Volante-Nobrega to import 50 MDMA tablets which were never delivered (Second Indictment).  Teixeira was to be paid in cash and with some tablets.  Volante-Nobrega admitted that he was the organiser of the unsuccessful importation and that he intended to sell his share of the consignment to individual users. 

Whilst on bail Teixeira overturned his car whilst carrying a passenger, and stole parking paycards worth £167 from his employer. 

Details of Mitigation:

Youth, character, family support.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  2 years' youth detention.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  2 years' youth detention, concurrent.

Third Indictment

Count 1:

1 month's youth detention, consecutive.

Fourth Indictment

Count 1:

£400 fine or 3 weeks' youth detention in default, consecutive, plus disqualification from driving for a period of 3 months after which time a driving test to be retaken.

Total: 2 years and 1 month's youth detention, plus £400 fine, (with 2 years in which to pay or 3 weeks' youth detention in default), together with disqualification from driving for a period of 3 months after which a driving test is to be retaken.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:

312 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention, together with a 12 month Probation Order.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

312 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention, concurrent, together with a 12 month Probation Order.

Third Indictment

Count 1:

50 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 1 month's youth detention, consecutive.

Fourth Indictment

Count 1:

£400 fine (or 3 weeks' youth detention in default, consecutive), to be paid at a rate of £50 per week, plus disqualification from driving for a period of 3 months after which time a driving test is to be retaken.

Total: 362 hours' Community Service Order, together with a 12 month Probation Order, plus £400 fine to be paid at a rate of £50 per week (with 2 years in which to pay or 3 weeks' youth detention in default), together with disqualification from driving for a period of 3 months after which a driving test is to be retaken.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

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

Advocate J. M. Grace for Volante-Nobrega.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for Teixeira.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Teixeira, you arranged for two quantities of ecstasy tablets to be sent to your flat by post.  The first occasion was at the request of your co-accused, Volante-Nobrega, and you were going to pass on the drugs onto him.  The amount involved was 50 tablets and you were going to be paid cash by him.  There seems to be a dispute as to whether it was £100 as you say or £200 as he says, but nothing turns on that.   Fortunately for the Island, the tablets never arrived.  The second occasion involved 27 tablets of ecstasy.  This was at the request of a different person and this time you were to receive £75 plus some tablets.  Fortunately these were intercepted by Customs so you were involved with the planned importation of 77 tablets in all.  You are also before the Court for an offence of larceny where you stole 10 books of pay cards at the request of someone else from your employer and also an offence of driving without due care and attention.  Both of these offences were committed whilst on bail which is particularly serious. 

2.        Volante-Nobrega, you face the single charge of conspiring to import ecstasy but the nature of your involvement could be said to be greater than that of your co-accused in that you admitted to the police that you were going to sell all the 50 tablets; you have since told the probation officer that you were going to sell half and give the other half to the person who had asked you to organise the provision of an address.  The Crown has accepted that version and has asked us to sentence on that basis so we do. 

3.        The first question for us is the starting point and the well-known case of AG-v-Bonner and Noon [2001] JLR 626 suggests a 7-9 year starting point for 1-500 tablets.  The Crown has moved for 7 years in respect of Teixeira and we agree with that.  As to Volante-Nobrega, whilst your involvement was greater in relation to that Count, you do only face one count whereas Teixeira was involved in two importations, so all in all we think it is correct that you too should have a starting point of 7 years. 

4.        We turn next to mitigation.  Teixeira, you pleaded guilty; you have had a difficult time at home as set out in the probation report, which we do not need to describe in detail; we have read your letter and the many references; you have no previous convictions and, most importantly, you have youth on your side and you have a good employment record.  All of these matters stand you in good stead. 

5.        Volante-Nobrega, you too have pleaded guilty, you also have no previous convictions; we have read the letter from your mother and from you and you, too, have youth on your side and we are pleased to see that you have an offer of employment.  But I must begin by reminding everyone of the Court's policy where people become involved in trafficking of Class A drugs, which ecstasy is.  The Court's policy is that almost invariably prison or youth detention is the sentence which follows, even in the case of young offenders.  Now we have been referred by your counsel to four cases where a non-custodial sentence was given and occasionally the Court has done that, but all those cases turn on their specific facts.  The general policy of the Court is as I have just described it. 

6.        So the question for us today has been, are the circumstances of this offence sufficiently exceptional that we can depart from the normal policy?  Two of the Jurats say no.  They think youth detention is required to comply with the Court's policy and to drive home to everyone the serious consequences which follow from dabbling in these dangerous drugs.  But four Jurats have just been persuaded that the circumstances of this case are sufficiently exceptional that we can impose a non-custodial sentence.  They think that the best interests of society would be served by your not re-offending and becoming hard-working members of the community; they think you both have the potential to do that and they think that the best prospect of achieving it is to impose a probation order with community service as a punishment. 

7.        But you must realise how close you have come to going to youth detention.  As I say, it is only by a majority decision that you are not today going to youth detention by four votes to two. 

8.        So I want you now both to come round to the front and stand up.  Teixeira, the sentence of the Court is as follows; on the First Indictment; 312 hours' Community Service Order with a 12 month Probation Order, on the Second Indictment; 312 hours' Community Service Order, that is concurrent, on the Third Indictment; 50 hours' Community Service Order, but that is consecutive, that is for the larceny so you have got to do some extra work for that, and on the Fourth Indictment you are fined £400 with 3 weeks' in default to be paid at the rate of £50 per week.  You are disqualified from driving for 3 months and you will have to take a driving test at the end of that.  So the total in your case is 362 hours' Community Service and a Probation Order for 12 months. 

9.        Volante-Nobrega, on Count 1, the only count you face, 312 hours' Community Service and a 12 month Probation Order.

10.      We say in both your cases that the sentence we would otherwise have passed would be 2 years; youth detention and, in your case Teixeira, an additional 1 month for the larceny. 

11.      Now let me give you a warning.  You have both been extremely fortunate not to be going to youth detention today but you have now got to undertake this Community Service and you have got to undergo a Probation Order.  I want you both to be absolutely clear and I want your parents and supporters to be absolutely clear; if you do not turn up exactly on time to carry out the community service, if you do not work hard whilst you are carrying out the Community Service, if you do not turn up and do exactly what your probation officer says and, of course, if you commit any further offences, then you will come back here and it is hard to see any alternative then, but your going into youth detention, do you understand that?  Very well so that is the sentence of the Court. 

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

Authorities

AG-v-Bonner and Noon [2001] JLR 626.

AG v Gaish [2006] JRC 109.

AG v Koradi [2014] JRC 073.

AG v Kirkland 2001/200.

AG v Gavey [2010] JRC 203.