Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession with intent to supply - possession - Class A and B.

[2016]JRC166G

Royal Court

(Samedi)

21 September 2016

Before     :

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher, Nicolle, Olsen, Blampied, Ronge and Pitman

The Attorney General

-v-

Marcio Abreu Freitas Spinola

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 8th July, 2016, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

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

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Police executed a search warrant at the defendant's flat and found a number of items including 38 sticks of cannabis resin, 96 individually wrapped pieces of cannabis, three silver wraps and a joint containing cannabis resin and two small wraps of heroin.  Most of the drugs were found in the wardrobe.  Two separate amounts of cash - £1,020 and £414 - were also seized from the defendant.  The drugs expert stated that the potential street value of the heroin was between £400 and £1,000, based on a local street price of £300 to £400 per gram or £50 per deal (0.05 gram).  The total value of the cannabis resin could have been as high as £3,660.  The defendant, who admitted using both heroin and cannabis, claimed that he was looking after the drugs for a friend while the friend went on holiday.  The defendant said that he was to receive the £1,020 cash as payment for keeping the drugs safe.  The Crown accepted that the defendant played the role of temporary custodian (or minder) of the drugs on behalf of a friend, and was not dealing to customers.  Count 4 related to three foil wrapped cannabis sticks and joint which the defendant said belonged to him and were for his personal use. 

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas, remorse, good character, good work record, strong personal relationships and good references. 

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3½ years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3½ years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Confiscation Order hearing adjourned until 19 December at 10am. 

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court accepted that the defendant was a minder who had seen an opportunity to make money or receive drugs.  However, minders play an important role in the drugs trade and, despite the weight of the drugs, this was not a minor matter. 

Conclusions granted.

Confiscation Order hearing adjourned until 19 December at 10am. 

No recommendation for deportation made. 

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

Advocate G. A. H. Baxter for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced today for three counts relating to drug trafficking, possession with intent to supply of 1.15 grams of heroin, possession with intent to supply of 178 grams of cannabis and the possession of a small amount of cannabis resin.  According to the expert, the value of the heroin was approximately £400 and cannabis £3,150. 

2.        The Crown has accepted, as do we for these purposes, that you were a minder, and you saw this offence as an opportunity to make money or potentially to receive drugs in kind.  But minders, as the Court has said on a number of occasions, play an important role in the drugs trade and it is not a minor matter to be a minder, it is a serious matter. 

3.        We deal first with the confiscation order and as requested adjourn further determination of that to 19^th December, 2016, at 10am. 

4.        We now turn to sentence.  We have considered carefully the mitigation available to you.  We note your guilty plea; your good work record, your good character and the contents of the social enquiry report, and the references and other documents placed before us.  That notwithstanding, we think that the conclusions of the Crown are correct, and, accordingly, from a starting point of 7 years, with which we agree, you are sentenced with regard to Count 1; 3½ years' imprisonment.  With regard to Count 3; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, and with regard to Count 4; 2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3½ years. 

5.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

6.        We turn now to the question of deportation.  The Court is wholly satisfied that the first limb of the Camacho test (Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462) is amply met in this case, namely that your continued presence is detrimental to the island.  We have given anxious consideration to the second limb of the Camacho test and have considered the human rights both of you and of innocent third parties.  By a majority decision we have decided not to recommend your deportation at the end of your sentence.  I emphasise that this is a majority decision, and that you must assume that if you are ever before this Court again, in respect to a serious matter that you are very much at risk of a recommendation for deportation. 

Authorities

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.

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

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.