Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/101

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

11th May 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Sean Michael Lambotte

 

 

1 count of:	Intentionally obstructing police officer, in exercise of his powers under Article 17(5)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 2: heroin.

 

Breach of a 12 month binding over order and 12 month probation order, made on 1^st December, 2000 in Royal Court (see Jersey Unreported Judgments of that date) following guilty plea to:

 

3 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 1: cannabis resin, on which count a 12 month probation order was made. Count 2: MDMA, on which count a £350 fine or 3 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment was passed. Count 3: cannabis resin, on which count a 12 month binding over order was made.
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 4: cannabis resin, on which count a 1 year probation order was made.

 

Age:

24        

 

Plea:   

Guilty, breach admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

Lambotte was seen acting in a furtive manner by police officers.  When he was approached by a police officer for the purpose of search under the Misuse of Drugs Law, it was noticed that he had something in his mouth that he was attempting to swallow.  He was instructed to spit out the contents of his mouth, but refused to do so.  He continued to struggle.  Despite repeated requests, he refused to spit out the contents of his mouth.

At  Police Headquarters, during detention process, he continued to attempt to swallow the items in his mouth.  Eventually he spat out several items which consisted of cling film and paper and the items appeared to contain heroin and a 'deal list'.  A further package of what appeared to be heroin could be clearly seen in Lambotte's  mouth.  After seeking the advice of the Police Doctor, Lambotte was permitted to swallow the remaining items in his mouth, which he did.  Lambotte subsequently admitted that he had swallowd a quantity of heroin and that it had been a personal amount, 'enough for a few lines'. When interviewed, Lambotte was uncooperative, giving either vague or evasive answers, though he did eventually admit that he had one wrap of heroin in his mouth and the deal list, which he had found in his car, and which he had intended to get rid of.  The items that he spat out were analysed and it was suggested that the wrap could have contained 50mg of heroin.  In consequence of these offences, Lambotte was in breach of probation order made by Royal Court on 1^st December, 2000 (see Jersey Unreported Judgment of that date [2000/241] for facts.  Court making probation order had clearly stated that it was giving Lambotte a chance.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, albeit inevitable.

There were two positive reports before Court.  Lambotte had been open and forthcoming regarding drug use.  This was only the second time that he had used heroin, although it was acknowledged that he had now stepped up from cannabis to heroin.  He was, however, motivated to comply with treatment order.  Entitled to credit for residual youth.  Letter of remorse from Lambotte with references handed up.  He had satisfactorily completed 45 hours of community service order made on 1^st December, 2000.  Court requested to give Lambotte one last chance

 

Previous Convictions:

 Two previous court appearances, first for speeding, second for possession of cannabis and ecstasy and possession with intent to supply cannabis.

 

Conclusions:

 

Main Indictment

 

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Breaches

 

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 4:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to sentence passed on main indictment.
TOTAL (Indictment & Breaches):	7 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

On 1^st December 2000, Court had given Lambotte a chance.  Unusually on a charge of intent to supply, the Court had felt able to pass a non-custodial sentence, but had given a clear warning that if he re-offended, he could expect to go to prison.  Despite that, two months later he was found in possession of heroin and had obstructed police officers in order to avoid detection of heroin. Court had noted available mitigation and in particular that this was only second occasion on which he had used heroin.  Remorse in Lambotte's letter also noted and that in some respects he had made good progress.

 

Court could not overlook blatant breach of probation order. People who breach such orders should know consequences.  Crown had allowed full mitigation and therefore conclusions granted.

 

 

 

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

Advocate P. M. Livingstone for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.      Lambotte, on 1st December this Court gave you a chance.  Unusually for an offence of possession with intent to supply controlled drugs the Court imposed a non-custodial sentence   However, it gave you a clear warning at the time that if you re-offended you could expect to go to prison.  Despite that chance and despite that warning, just over two months later you were found in possession of heroin and, when arrested, you obstructed the efforts of the police to try and gain the necessary evidence.

 

2.      We have noted what your counsel has said in mitigation: the guilty plea; the fact that it was apparently only the second occasion you had used heroin; the remorse as expressed in your letter, and the general progress which you have made in certain respects, as set out in the reports, together with the reference from your employer which shows that you can work well.  But we cannot overlook such a flagrant breach of a probation order.  Those who breach probation orders must realise that they have thrown away the chance which they have been given.  We think the Crown's conclusions have made full allowance for all the available mitigation and for the community service you have already served and we therefore grant the conclusions.

 

3.      On count 1, you are sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment; on count 2, 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3 months' imprisonment.  For the offences for which you were placed on probation: on count 1, 1 month's imprisonment; on count 3, 1 month's imprisonment; on count 4, 4 months' imprisonment; all of those concurrent but to be consecutive to the counts on the other indictment, making a total of 7 months' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destructions of the drugs.

No Authorities