Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - Class A

[2021]JRC291

Royal Court

(Samedi)

18 November 2021

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge, Austin-Vautier and Hughes

The Attorney General

-v-

Rebecca Barbara Shale

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 6^th August 2021, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

3 counts of:

Being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 1 - 3)

Age:  23. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On 6^th November 2020, a drugs warrant was executed at an address in St Helier.  Drugs, paraphernalia and cash were all seized.  The Defendant was found inside the property with two men, who have both since been convicted of drugs offences relating to the warrant.

 

The Defendant was arrested and her phone was seized.  Upon examination, her phone revealed messages evidencing that she was concerned in the supply of cannabis, MDMA and cocaine to various users.  The Defendant was not in possession of any drugs at the time of arrest.

 

The drug expert opined that since September 2020, the Defendant had "offered cocaine, MDMA and cannabis to numerous contacts however it is not often clear from messaging whether the supply has actually occurred".  The expert also opined on the total street values of the drugs offered, as follows:

Drug	Dates	Amounts	Value
Cannabis	20.09.20 to 04.11.20	50g	£1,500
MDMA	31.10.21 to 06.11.20	2g	£150
Cocaine	04.11.21 to 06.11.20	1g	£135

The Defendant made admissions in her first interview that her phone would contain messages concerning the offer to supply drugs, admitting that she put friends in contact with others who can supply drugs.

 

The Defendant provided a 'no comment' interview at her second interview and refused to sign the bank disclosure authority.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  The Court also noted the contents of an expert Psychological Report. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	12 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	300 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	300 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  300 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment together with and 18 month Probation Order. 

Declaration of benefit and Confiscation Order to be determined at a later hearing. 

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate D. P. Le Maistre for the Defendant. 

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Rebecca Shale you are 23 years old and of previous good character.  You stand before the Court today in relation to three offences you committed in the Autumn of 2020, namely being concerned in the supply of three controlled drugs, cannabis, MDMA and cocaine.  The latter drugs, the two Class A drugs on the Indictment, were covered by periods during which you offended limited to 8 and 4 days respectively.  

2.        A drugs warrant was executed by the States of Jersey Police on 6^th November 2020.  You were arrested and your telephone was seized.  Your phone was analysed, and messages were identified which indicated that you had been offering to supply cannabis for money and agreeing to supply MDMA and cocaine.  In one message you said, "I'm trying to shift some md and Charlie," that is slang for MDMA and cocaine, "if you wanting any I can get smoke as well".  Accordingly, you were offering to supply ecstasy, cannabis or cocaine to one of your contacts.

3.        When you were interviewed by the police you provided your pin number, allowing the police access to your mobile telephone and you admitted that your telephone would contain messages concerning the offer to supply drugs, and you made that admission to the police before your telephone was even analysed.  You accepted that you had put your friends in contact with others who could supply drugs and it is to your credit that you made a clean breast of things in interview and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

4.        Had you not cooperated with the police you would have faced no charges.  There was nothing else to connect you with any offending apart from the contents of your phone.  You accept that you were a go-between for a dealer and those who were going to purchase controlled drugs.  Nonetheless that gave you a crucial role in the supply chain.  You accepted in one text to a contact that you needed the money, so you could give cash to the dealer, who would then collect the drugs and then you would meet that person when they had picked up those drugs.

5.        Now the Crown say that the starting point for the offences at Counts 2 and 3, involving as they do Class A drugs, is 7 years' imprisonment.  Your counsel does not agree and says that the guidance in the case of Rimmer et al v AG [2001] JLR 373 does not apply on the facts of this case.  We do not need to resolve that matter today.

6.        You were 22 when you committed these offences and the Crown have moved for a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.  The pre-sentence report says that you would source customers for Mr De Sa Fernandes, who received 3½ years imprisonment earlier this week from this Court, and another.  Your reward would be the supply of cannabis for yourself which you say, and we accept, you never received.

7.        According to the Probation Officer you did not fully understand at the time that you were involving yourself in criminal offences.  Your family, and they are in Court today, have expressed disgust at your behaviour.  You grew up in a stable family setting, you left home when you were 18 and became involved in an abusive domestic relationship about which we have read in which you were the victim.  In the context of that relationship, you took advice from the police and you were referred to an independent domestic violence advisor who supported you.  You then made some poor friendship choices and became involved with people who chose to involve you in dealing controlled drugs.  At about the time of these offences you begun to live for a period of three months in the Women's Refuge.  You have now cut ties with those people, those who involved you in the offending.  You are still taking cannabis but not on the scale that you were, and you want to tackle this with the assistance of the Substance Misuse Officer at the Probation Service.

8.        We have read with care a report from Dr Lyle to which we are going to refer, who is a psychologist, who has spent time with you. Advocate Le Maistre drew our attention to his conclusion that you do not present as the type of person one would normally expect to meet who is facing charges of dealing in Class A drugs.  You have a previously blameless record and come from a good and solid family background.  But you exhibit characteristics which have not previously been diagnosed in large part, which combine to make you an extremely vulnerable person at risk of exploitation.  Those matters that he has diagnosed include Autistic Spectrum Disorder and continuing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder owing to the abusive relationship to which we referred.  You are also assessed as exhibiting a high degree of suggestibility and compliance.  You are, in short, vulnerable to exploitation by others and in our view such vulnerability led to this offending. 

9.        The recommendation by the Probation Officer is a Probation Order, coupled with Community Service.  Such a Probation Order will ensure that you receive proper support, tackle your cannabis use, go on the courses run by the Women's Refuge and find and maintain full-time employment.  Your Probation Officer says you are a first offender with many positive qualities.  You have made mistakes, and, in our view, you are very much at a cross-roads in your life.

10.      Your advocate invites us to impose what he called as a constructive sentence.  He says this is an exceptional case and, having regards to the contents of the report from Dr Lyle, to which we have just referred, and the other mitigation to which we have also alluded, we agree.  In addition, you have had this matter hanging over you for in excess of a year, even though you admitted the offence in interview and have pleaded guilty.

11.      You were involved in arranging for the supply of at the most three grams of drugs over a short period in November 2020, you committed these offences when you were extremely vulnerable and at the behest of others and, notwithstanding these proceedings, we have read that you have carried on working for others on a part-time basis and are trusted and valued by people who know you well, including with the care of their children.

12.      So accordingly, we do propose to take an exceptional course. On Count 1, being concerned in the supply of cannabis, I should indicate that the sentence that the Court was considering imposing was 12 months' imprisonment and instead we are ordering you to perform 180 hours' Community Service.  On Counts 2 and 3 the sentence that the Court was considering imposing was 2½ years' imprisonment to run concurrently making a total of 2½ years imprisonment, but instead of requiring you to serve 2½ years' imprisonment in relation to Counts 2 and 3 we order you to perform 300 hours' Community Service, to run concurrently, making a total of 300 hours' Community Service.

13.      We acknowledge and accept that the non-statutory table in relation to these matters suggests that the equivalent of a 30 month sentence is a higher number of hours but we regard the number of hours of 300 as being appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the fact that you will  not be able to start the hours, we understand, until the New Year, and we regard it is appropriate for you at the rate of 6 hours a week to be able to complete those hours in 1 calendar year or thereabouts.  We also make, concurrent on each count, an 18 month Probation Order so that you can get the help you need and that is subject to conditions set out in the report by the Probation Officer. 

14.      That is the sentence that the Court imposes.  Do understand that the Court is giving you a chance, Miss Shale, and we need to warn you that if you fail to complete the hours, or comply with the Probation Order then you will be brought back to this Court and we regret to say in those circumstances you would almost receive a prison sentence.

15.      There are other proceedings on the 24^th January 2022 in relation to confiscation which we have already considered.

Authorities

Rimmer et al v AG [2001] JLR 373. 

AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 027

AG v Antunes [2003] JRC 072

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136

McDonough v AG [1994] JCA 193