Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC076

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th April 2010

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats King and Kerley.

The Attorney General

-v-

Lee Michael Boustouler

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

First Indictment

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 6).

Second Indictment

2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 2 and 3).
1 count of:	Larceny (Count 4).

Age:  33.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 4^th December, 2008, Helen Bowler telephoned three men and arranged for them to attend on her flat in St Helier.  One of those men was the defendant, Boustouler.  All three men attended her flat at the same time, late morning.  In the flat was heroin, cash (2 x £50 bundles which is the price of a single dose of heroin) and drugs paraphernalia.  Helen Bowler was convicted of supplying of supplying heroin to Paul Mohammed, one of the men who attended the flat, and of supplying the defendant. 

Bowler sent Boustouler's mobile telephone a text message "Do you want to pop right round" at 11 25am.  Two police officers saw Boustouler park his white van outside a Bowler's flat shortly thereafter.  The van was left on a yellow line and the defendant left the vehicle and went to visit Bowler.  Bowler lives in a block of three flats.  Her flat is on the first floor.  There is a communal doorway.  The defendant went from his van and into the communal doorway.  The defendant is a plumber but took no tools with him.  He re-emerged from the small block of flats just two minutes later. 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Remorse, delay, offer to donate £50 to charity, has found accommodation and making attempts to change. 

Previous Convictions:

8 previous drug offences and 11 previous convictions for theft. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 6:

2 weeks' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 2:	2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 6 of the First Indictment.
Count 3:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total:  3 months and 2 weeks' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 6:

12 months' Probation Order.

Second Indictment

Count 2:	12 months' Probation Order, concurrent to Count 6 of the First Indictment.
Count 3:	12 months' Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 4:	12 months' Probation Order, concurrent.

Total:  12 months' Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

Commissioner:

1.        The defendant has pleaded guilty to obstructing the police on 4^th December, 2008, when he was stopped by the police leaving a flat from where the occupant had been supplying other men with heroin.  A police officer noticed something small in his mouth; the defendant complied with a request to open his mouth, but the officer couldn't see under his tongue.  The defendant refused to move his tongue as instructed and, instead, swallowed.  He pleaded guilty following the giving of evidence at his trial on 4^th January this year.  He was found not guilty of possession of heroin from which it must, of course, follow that he did not conceal or swallow heroin.  The obstruction therefore amounts to his refusing to lift his tongue.

2.         On 1^st July, 2009, whilst on bail, the police conducted a search of his house and found a small amount of cannabis debris and two blue Oxycodone tablets.  On 6^th of July the defendant went to Blockbusters video shop and opportunistically stole a charity box next to the till to pay for his drug habit.  The amount in the box is unknown and he cannot remember. 

3.        The defendant is 33 with a history of illicit drug use from his late teens culminating in heroin dependence and concomitant offending over the last twelve years.  He has a bad record of previous convictions and the record indicates that he presents for help during a crisis such as being arrested, but his motivation can quickly wane before completing any treatment.  In an addendum to the social enquiry report, and through his counsel, we are told that he expresses shame and embarrassment at the theft of the charity box, snatched at a time when he was in a state of withdrawal and desperate.  He has been receiving treatment at the alcohol and drug service on a voluntary basis; has found good accommodation; has secured income support and is looking for work as a plumber, having attended a number of interviews.  He feels he has made progress and dreads the thought of having to start all over again if he is imprisoned. 

4.        The probation service and the alcohol and drug service recommend a 12 month Community Treatment Order in conjunction with a Probation Order.  During this time he will be abstinent from illegal drugs which will be confirmed by random testing. 

5.        In terms of the mitigation, the defendant is clearly remorseful, as expressed in his letter which we have read, and we take into account the delay that has taken place between the larceny last summer and the possession offences before these matters were brought before the Magistrate's Court in January of this year.  Shameful as snatching a charity box is, these are in our view, minor offences.  The defendant has agreed to compensate the charity by donating £50 to it out of his limited savings; the sum is in his counsel's possession to be passed on to the charity concerned. 

6.        In our view, the interests of the community in this case actually lie in assisting this defendant to abstain from the use of illegal drugs, as it is that addiction which leads to his offending.  Imprisonment would, we accept, negate the real progress he has made and put him back to square one.  We are therefore going to take perhaps what might be regarded as the exceptional step of accepting the recommendations of the probation services and the alcohol and drugs services.  Having said that we do not underestimate the real challenge that you will face in complying with the orders which we impose upon you and the treatment that you will undertake, and you will appreciate that any failure in your complying with the orders will result in your being brought back before this Court where you undoubtedly will be put into prison. 

7.        Therefore in respect of each of the four counts you will be placed on 1 year's probation on the usual conditions but also on the following additional conditions:-

(i)        that you will abstain from all illegal and non-prescribed opiates, which will be confirmed by random and routine drug tests;

(ii)       that you will attend the alcohol and drug service for a period of 12 months;

(iii)      that you will comply with the treatment goals agreed with the alcohol and drug service; and

(iv)      that you attend such other courses and programmes as may be determined by the probation officer.  

We hope you understand those conditions and accept them and appreciate that if you fail to comply with them, you will be brought back before this Court.

8.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

No Authorities