Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC110

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26^th July 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq, Tibbo, Bullen, Georgelin, Clapham and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Roberto Gil Vieira Andrade

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

1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned with the supply of, or the making of an offer to supply a controlled drug contrary to Article 5 (c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 1) (heroin).
3 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Counts 2, 4, and 5 (heroin, cannabis and ecstasy).

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Police executed a drugs warrant at Andrade's address.  He was found to be in possession of 179 milligrams of heroin in 5 fifty-bags, average 59% pure diamorphine, one ecstasy tablet, and just over 2 grams of cannabis.  Andrade said that the drugs were for his personal use and this was accepted by the Crown.  Andrade admitted to selling heroin to fund his own addiction for a period of 141 days over a 7 month period; amount to approximately 35.25 grams with a street value of £35,250.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea; wrote own indictment on Count 1; no previous drug convictions; residual youth; model prisoner on remand (working in kitchen, off heroin, counselling); devastated by the affect on his girlfriend and child and motivated to change.

Previous Convictions:

One - D.I.C.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  8 years).
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Invitation to recommend deportation.  Confiscation Order £2,995.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	3½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Confiscation Order made. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  Deportation not recommended on this occasion.

8 years' was the correct starting point.  Aggravating factors:  offence too serious for non-custodial sentence.  Mitigating factors:  guilty plea, wrote own indictment, no previous convictions, references from partner and partner's mother, progress in prison.

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

Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Andrade you have pleaded guilty to being a low level retail heroin dealer in order to fund your own dependency.  You were found in possession of 5 fifty bags and you have admitted supplying over a period of 141 days, although not consecutively, so the total involved is something in the region of 35 grams. 

2.        The Crown has taken a starting point of 8 years which is the bottom of the applicable bracket in Rimmer and Ors -v- AG [2001] JLR 373 and your counsel accepts that that is an appropriate starting point and we agree.

3.        In mitigation, you have pleaded guilty, you have written your own indictment on the supply charge.  In other words if you had not admitted to it you would not have faced that charge and that is a weighty matter of mitigation.  You have no previous convictions other than driving under the influence.

4.        We have read very carefully the letters and references which you have written and which others have written on your behalf and we note particularly the one from your partner and we are also pleased to hear of the progress you have been making in prison.

5.        We have been some time in making our decision, and have considered very carefully whether we could accede to your counsel's suggestion of a non-custodial penalty.  But after discussion we have concluded that we cannot.  This was dealing which went on for quite a period and would have no doubt affected a number of people.  In the circumstances we regard it as too serious to be dealt with by way of a non-custodial penalty.  But taking account of all the mitigation that we have mentioned, we can reduce the conclusions slightly, particularly as we say because you wrote your own indictment.

6.        The sentence on Count 1 is 3½ years' imprisonment; on Count 2, 6 months' imprisonment; on Count 4, 6 months' imprisonment; and on Count 5, 1 month's imprisonment, all concurrent, making a total of 3½ years in all and we very much hope that you will continue with the progress you have made in prison, and keep drug free, so that when you come out you can re-establish your life with your family and not let them or yourself down.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  As to deportation we have taken account of the mitigation that we have described and the family connection, in all the circumstances and again particularly bearing in mind the powerful mitigation we do not think it necessary to recommend your deportation on this occasion.  But again you must realise that if you re-offend when you come out then you are likely to face deportation.

Authorities

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