Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC108

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

4^th July 2008

Before     :

F. C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E. Commissioner, and Jurats Le Brocq and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

Nikki Isabel Manson

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 4).

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Manson was seen in a shop in St Helier being passed a small package by Lee Thomas Buckley.  The Police arrested both individuals and Manson dropped the package and tried to kick it into the street.  The package was seized and found to contain 692 milligrams of heroin containing 16% by weight of diamorphine.  The wholesale value was £100-150.  The street value, on the basis that there was sufficient heroin to make 14 'street deal bags' sold at £50 per bag, was £700.  Whilst waiting for Police transport Manson threw her mobile phone down a drain and the phone was not recovered.

She initially lied in interview saying that she had collected the heroin from a location in the shop but then admitted that she had arranged with her co-accused, Buckley, to meet in the shop and had paid him £100 for 2 "50 bags".  She maintained her story that the heroin was for her personal use despite the greater quantity.  (Noted that the co-accused, Buckley, had been charged but sentencing in relation to him had been deferred because of other matters).

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown referred to Crown Advocate Whelan's text on the Royal Court's policy for sentencing offenders with personal amounts of Class A drugs.  The Crown's stance was that the time had arrived for Manson to receive a custodial sentence.  Whilst she had pleaded guilty at an early stage to possession charge, she was not a young offender and did not have a good record.  She admitted she had been using heroin over the last 3 years since her last conviction.  A Probation Order was recommended but not with a Community Treatment Order as the Alcohol and Drugs Service did not consider that she had the necessary commitment.

The Defence emphasised the early guilty plea and her horrific upbringing and background.  Emphasis was placed upon how she became an addict and the violence that she had been subjected to in consequence of a number of abusive relationships.  It was the Defence's position that she had now taken substantial steps to change her life and was committed to remain drug free.  She now had her own accommodation and he 15 year old daughter was residing with her.  She was supportive of her mother preventing her from reverting to drug use.

Previous Convictions:

Manson has a total of 8 convictions for 18 offences including offences of assault, possession of controlled drugs x 4, dishonesty and public order offences.

Conclusions:

Count 4:

6 months imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 4:

6 month Probation Order and completion of "Offending is not the only choice" programme.

Manson was given a clear warning that if she breached the Probation Order then she would go to Prison. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

The Crown reviewed the factual basis for sentencing.  Manson had possession of the heroin for personal use and this had been accepted by the Crown.  Her addiction had blighted her life for the last 13 years.  She did not have a good record although it was significant that she had not received a custodial sentence in the past.  She had been a heroin user since the age of 19.  Even though her last offence was December 2005 she had still been using heroin for the last 3 years.  She did not have the benefit of youth or good character.  The Court had regard to Crown Advocate Whelan's text describing the development of the Court's policy for the sentencing of offenders for personal possession.  The Court noted the change in her personal circumstances.  According to the Defence a Treatment Order would be setting her up to fail.  Despite the Crown's detailed arguments justifying a custodial sentence the Court was going to impose a further Probation Order.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This case has had a long history.  On the 23^rd August, 2007, in the afternoon, plain clothes Police Officers saw Manson, who is 32 years old, with her co-accused Buckley, receiving something from Buckley.  She attempted to kick it into the street, but it was retrieved by the plain clothes Police Officers and it contained heroin.  Two further wraps were found on Buckley.  While waiting in Library Place for the Police van, Manson's mobile phone went off and after a struggle she managed to throw it down a drain.  It has not been retrieved. 

2.        After lying to the Police, Manson finally admitted that she had purchased 2 '50' bags from Buckley for £100.  She also eventually admitted that she had thrown away the mobile phone because there was evidence in it that she had arranged to meet Buckley at the store where she was arrested.

3.        The Crown has accepted that the heroin was for personal use, but forensic evidence had to be obtained for other reasons, and that partly explains the long delay.  Addiction has clearly, as the Crown Advocate says, blighted her life for the past 13 years.  We have examined her criminal record, which is not good, but it is perhaps significant that she has not received a custodial sentence in the past.  She has been a heroin user since the age of 19, and although her last possession offence was in December 2005, she has, as the Crown Advocate says, been effectively using heroin for the past 3 years.

4.        Manson does not have the benefit of youth, nor is she of good character.  The Probation office says that she is at medium risk of re-offending, but she is not, according to the Alcohol and Drugs Service, a suitable candidate for a community treatment order. 

5.        We have examined Whelan on his passage "Possession for Personal Possession" and studied the cases that have been presented to us. 

6.        Advocate Hopwood, in Defence, has told us of the horrific background to Miss Manson's life.  Her sister is in India and she had booked a ticket for £495 to meet her there.  This is lost, of course, because of this case.  She has written us a two page letter which is very detailed and her daughter is going to be 15 tomorrow.  She has been offered a Grace Trust flat, in which she is living, she has re-established a close relationship with her daughter.  The two younger children, of 5 and 9, are being cared for elsewhere, although she does see her 9 year old daughter in the evenings at weekends.  According to Advocate Hopwood, who has spoken to Mr Gafoor, of the Drug Treatment Department, it appears that a treatment order would be setting her up to fail. 

7.        Now we are, despite Crown Advocate Gollop's most reasoned arguments, going to give you a Probation Order.  That Probation Order is for 6 months, and you must attend the "Offending is not the choice" programme which will revisit some of the lessons that you learnt on the SMART programme.  We note that your performance previously, while on probation, was very good.

8.        If you breach your probation order you will go to prison, we do not want this to happen.

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

Authorities

Whelan Aspects of Sentencing.