Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs-v-possession with intent to supply - possession - supply - Class A and B.

[2016]JRC084

Royal Court

(Samedi)

14 April 2016

The Attorney General

-v-

Luis Paulo Alves Nunes

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 11^th March, 2016, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

During a voluntary search of person a small lump of cannabis resin (4·09 grams) was found in the defendant's wallet, which also contained £429:00 in cash; these were seized together with his mobile telephone and he was arrested.  In a subsequent search of the defendant's flat two plastic wraps of heroin (c.3 & c.5 grams) were found in a shoe box and £420:00 cash in a DVD box.  In interview the defendant stated his employment was seasonal and he "got in with the wrong crowd" when not working, smoking heroin and later being trusted and encouraged to supply the drug to fund his own habit.  He admitted having received 10 grams of heroin on six occasions over the previous year and that he had sold the drugs on.  On indictment his guilty pleas on Counts 2 & 3 were tendered on the basis that the 5 gram bag at his flat was for his own use and 3 gram bag was to sell and that he had used some of each of the 10 gram quantities himself.  The "not guilty" plea on Count 4 related to an apparent offer, amongst text messages stored on the defendant's mobile telephone, to supply 3 grams of cannabis; the matter was allowed to lie on the file. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Frank and cooperative; wrote own indictment in the proper sense with regard to the most serious count.  No previous drug convictions, only a written caution for possession of cannabis.  Positive social enquiry report.  Good references, well thought of by seasonal employer of seven years, who remained supportive.  Defence suggested a custodial alternative could be considered as the defendant had spent the equivalent of nearly six months on remand. 

Previous Convictions:

Three motoring offences dealt with on one appearance before the lower court, attracting only fines and a short period of disqualification.  

Conclusions:

Total: 4 years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order sought in the amount of £829.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

With regard to the question of deportation the Crown submitted that the defendant's continued presence was detrimental to the Island, but in all the circumstances felt he could be spared from a recommendation for deportation at present but warned that any future offending would weigh heavily against him in that regard. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: 3½ years' imprisonment. 

The Court adopted a starting point of 8 ½ years with regard to the heroin offences accepting that the defendant's own consumption of the drug moved his offending into a lower band and with regard to supply, and the totality of his actions.  However despite all that could be said for the defendant the offending and time period were considerable and only a custodial sentence was appropriate, however able to reduce the Crown's conclusions slightly. 

Confiscation Order made in the amount of £829.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

With regard to deportation the Court found the defendant's continued presence in the Island detrimental, did not make a recommendation for deportation but warned the defendant any reoffending would seriously jeopardise that consideration. 

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        You were found to be in possession of 7.94 grams of heroin at your home; you admit you would probably have supplied up to 3 grams to your circle of friends and this would have helped fund your own consumption.  During the police interview you volunteered that on six previous occasions in 2015 you purchased 10 grams of heroin, much of which you had sold to your circle of friends. 

2.        We accept that in relation to that 60 grams you did indeed write your own Indictment, in other words you would not have been prosecuted for that offence and the police would never have known about it if you had not disclosed its existence.  We therefore agree with your advocate that you are entitled to additional mitigation for that over and above your guilty plea. 

3.        The question first of all is the starting point.  The Crown have suggested that in relation to Count 3 coupled with Count 2, the total amount involved is between 50 and 100 grams which puts you in the bracket of Rimmer and Ors-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 with a starting point of 9-11 years.  Advocate Bell has argued that is too high because, on the version of events which has been presented to us you were, of course, going to consume a fair quantity of the heroin yourself and only sell some of it and Advocate Bell has argued that therefore we are in the 20-50 gram bracket in terms of what you have supplied or were going to supply.  We agree.  We think that the right course is to take a starting point of 8½ years' imprisonment in relation to Count 3 having regard to the totality of what you have done or were going to do. 

4.        Advocate Bell also argues that there is considerable mitigation.  He points first of all to your guilty plea, and secondly, to what we have already said, namely on Count 3, although not Count 2, you wrote your own Indictment.  Next, he refers to your excellent work record and we have read the references from your employer and, indeed, we note that they are holding your job open at present; so that speaks well of you.  We have also read all the personal references of which there were many and they speak very highly of you.  We have read your own letter indicating your remorse and we note that you have been addressing the question of heroin in La Moye.  We have also read the background report which put you at low risk of reoffending; so there is much to be said on your behalf. 

5.        Advocate Bell has submitted that putting all this together, particularly having regard to the fact that you have served the equivalent of 6 months' already, we can proceed by way of a non-custodial sentence.  We have, of course, considered that.  But, dealing in this quantity of heroin for this period means, in our view, that we can only proceed by way of a prison sentence.  Heroin is a terrible drug, it causes terrible suffering to those who take it and those who deal in it must face the consequences.  However, taking into account all the mitigation which has been referred to and all the mitigation available on the papers, we do think we can reduce the conclusions a little. 

6.        On Count 1 it is 2 weeks' imprisonment, on Count 2; 3 years' imprisonment; on Count 3; 3½ years' imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent, so that is 3½ years' imprisonment in all. 

7.        As to deportation, we do find your presence here to be detrimental but we agree with the Crown that, given how long you have been in the island and the fact that all your family are here, it would be disproportionate to recommend deportation at present.  But you must realise that if, following your release you were to reoffend, then deportation would be a real risk. 

8.        Finally we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

9.        There is one other point I omitted to mention.  We do find the benefit from your drug trafficking to be £28,900 and we make a Confiscation Order in the sum of £829. 

Authorities

Rimmer and Ors-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.