Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/212

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th November, 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Duncan Edward Stammers

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 16^th August, 2002, following a guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law 1999:
	Count 1: heroin.

 

[On 16^th August, 2002, the Court ordered that Count 2 of the indictment should remain on the file].

Age:     44.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

104 grams of heroin concealed in trousers.  Wholesale value £15,600 - £20,800 street value £31,200 - £46,800.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Did not have benefit of co-operation.  Had tried to abscond while being questioned.  Had made no comment interview.  Did not have youth on his side.  Had pleaded guilty but had been caught red-handed.  Defence put forward that he had been under pressure from money lenders to commit the offence to clear a non drug related debt.  Threats had been made to his girlfriend and child.

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous previous convictions including nine previous drug offences.  In 2000 had been sentenced to 18 months in custody in UK for possession of heroin and possession with intent to supply cannabis.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

9 years' imprisonment; (10 years starting point).

£56 confiscation order.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:

7½ years' imprisonment.

 

Court agreed 10 years was correct starting point.  Having regard to probation report and references and especially the three cases referred to, two of which involved noticeably more heroin, the Court thought that the correct deduction was 2½ years.

 

Advocate S.E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain, for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You imported 104 grams of heroin with a street value of some £31 - £46,000.  We agree with the Crown that the correct starting point is 10 years' imprisonment.  In mitigation Advocate Pearmain has urged your guilty plea, and the circumstances which gave rise to this offence.  You have a long-standing drug habit but on this occasion you borrowed money to buy a car for your business; and then, through difficulty with unemployment, you were unable to pay your debts and owed some £1,200.  You were told that if you undertook this drug run the debt would be cancelled.  It is a sad but familiar tale. 

2.        You have a previous record for drug offences, and indeed were released from prison in early 2001 for your one previous offence of possession with intent to supply, although we are informed that that involved minding cannabis for someone else.  You have a number of convictions for possession.  We have had regard to what is in the Social Enquiry Report; we have also read your letter and the references and we have, in particular, had regard to the three cases which Advocate Pearmain has cited to us that of A.G.-v-Price (2^nd August, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/170], A.G.-v-Moy (10^th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/7] and A.G. -v- Selway (10^th October, 2002) Jersey Unreported: [2002/187]; in two of those cases the amount of heroin involved was noticeably greater; in Moy it was marginally greater.

3.        Taking into account all the circumstances, we think the correct reduction from the starting point is one of 2½ years.  The sentence will be 7½ years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G.-v-Price (2^nd August, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/170].

A.G.-v-Moy (10^th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/7].

A.G. -v- Selway (10^th October, 2002) Jersey Unreported: [2002/187].

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade -v- A.G.[2001/373].