Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC027

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th February 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Le Brocq, Tibbo, King, Le Cornu and Newcombe .

The Attorney General

-v-

David Caboz Vieira

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty pleas to:

1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 (c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 1)
1 count of:	Obstructing a Police Officer in the execution of his duty contrary to Article 19 (7)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 3).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to Article 8 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 3).

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Police Officers attended the home of Vieira to find him smoking heroin.  As they entered his flat Vieira swallowed just over 4 grams of wrapped heroin in an attempt to prevent the Police seizing the same (Count 2).  The Police found a further 250 mg of heroin in the flat, together with £4,609.17 cash.  The heroin Vieira swallowed was later expelled and seized.  A Police expert valued the drugs as having a street value of between £2750 and £4,250.

During Police interview Vieira admitted that the drugs were his and that he intended to supply the same (Count 4).   He also admitted that he had been selling around a gram of heroin per day for the last 4 to 5 months (Count 1).  He said that he had been a heroin addict for the last year, and supported his habit by dealing at street level.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas and co-operation with Police after arrest.  Wrote his own indictment on Count 1.  Residual youth.  Good work record.  Attempts to sort out his addiction.

Previous Convictions:

9 previous convictions comprising 17 offences, including 5 drugs offences.  Imprisoned for 6 months for possession of heroin in 2002.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 9 years).
Count 2:	2 week's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 4:	3½  years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total 4 years 2 weeks' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	3½ years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 8 years).
Count 2:	2 weeks' imprisonment (consecutive).
Count 4:	3 years' imprisonment (concurrent).

Total 3½ years plus 2 weeks' imprisonment.

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

Advocate L. J. L. Buckley for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Vieira, you have admitted possessing just over 4 grams of heroin with intent to supply it.  You are a retail heroin dealer and you have also admitted that you have been selling regularly over the last 4 to 5 months, no doubt to feed your own heroin addiction. 

2.        You have a poor record, with offences of dishonesty and possession of drugs; and until you conquer your heroin addiction the outlook is not promising.  However, we are encouraged by what your advocate has said this afternoon; that you now realise that you have to conquer this addiction and you are taking steps to try and overcome it.  We hope very much that you will be successful.

3.        We must first consider the starting point.  In our judgment the correct starting point in this case is one of 8 years' imprisonment.  In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea, the fact that you wrote your own indictment on Count 1, the fact that you have a good work record, and the reference from your employer saying he would hold the job open for you, the fact that you have been seeking to maintain your son and all the other mitigation that appears on the papers before us. 

4.        In all the circumstances we think that the right sentence is as follows, on count 1, 3½ years' imprisonment; on count 2, 2 weeks consecutive; on count 4, 3 years concurrent.  That means a total of 3½ years plus 2 weeks.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

5.        Mr Yates we would like to make one point; there will be no question in this case of our recommending deportation.  Clearly it is not the sort of case where it would be appropriate.  However we do think that, wherever there is a non-national who commits serious offences, the Crown must look at this issue in order to consult with the Immigration Service as to whether the necessary steps should be taken and a recommendation for deportation made to the Court.  We would wish in all cases to be assured that the Crown has considered the issue and notified the Court of its conclusions.  Clearly if the Crown recommends deportation then that will be clear, but even if the Crown decides not to, we would like to know that it has considered it and why it has decided not to move for a recommendation for deportation from the Court.

No Authorities