2002/188
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
10th October 2002
Before:
|
F.C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner, and
Jurats Potter, Tibbo, Bullen, Georgelin, Allo and Myles.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Khalel Siddique Ahmed
Sentencing by the
Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendant was remanded by the
Inferior Number on 9th August, 2002, following guilty pleas 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
Count 2: heroin
Count 3: cocaine
|
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: heroin.
|
[On 17th
May, 2002, the defendant pleaded guilty to counts 1 – 3 and not guilty to
counts 4 and 5 of the Indictment; on 9th August, 2002, the defendant
changed his plea to guilty on count 4, and the Crown accepted a not guilty plea
to count 5].
Age: 31.
Details of Offence:
Found in possession in home. No unusual circumstances. Quantity of heroin 5.249 grams. Quantity of crack cocaine 8 rocks. Quantity of cannabis 816 milligrams.
Details of Mitigation:
Said in open Court on day of
sentence that he informed Police about drug dealers i.e. he made his text
public. Also has given evidence
against accused in separate action.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
Count 1:
|
1 month’s imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
1 year’s imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 3:
|
1 year’s imprisonment, concurrent
|
Count 4:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent
|
Recommendation for deportation
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1:
|
1 month’s imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
1 year’s imprisonment, concurrent
|
Count 3:
|
1 year’s imprisonment, concurrent
|
Count 4:
|
2
years’ imprisonment, concurrent
|
Unusual situation, because openly
gave evidence against drug dealer in another case, which Royal Court wants to encourage. No recommendation for deportation due to
4 year old daughter in Jersey and wife’s ill health.
N.M. Santos
Costa Esq, Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. Juste for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1.
Of the 4
counts of the indictment the most serious is the possession of heroin with the
intent to supply. Ahmed changed his
plea to guilty on that account after a trial had been arranged to commence on 28th August, 2002. He pleaded guilty to possession with
intent to supply 5.294 grams of heroin.
The Crown accepts that whilst some of this heroin may have been for
personal use, most of it would have been sold, particularly as he has a crack
cocaine preference and does not inject heroin.
2.
The Crown’s
argument is that the heroin seized was mixed with glucose to bulk it out this
would have made it difficult to burn sufficiently for it be smoked, but Advocate
Juste says that he did not know that.
The larger wraps contained smaller wraps. The Crown’s contention, based on
expert advice, was that personal users do not sub-divide their heroin; Advocate
Juste says that this was done to prevent his small daughter from finding it on
a home visit.
3.
Ahmed’s
personal finances at the time of his arrest showed outgoings of over £700
per week and income of only £280 per week; but Advocate Juste explained
that by saying that he borrowed substantially for these purposes. We cannot test those discrepancies; we
must merely accept that discrepancies may exist.
4.
The case
of Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-A.G. [2001] JLR 373 CofA suggests a starting
point of 7 years and bearing in mind that some of the heroin was for personal
use, we accept that starting point.
5.
Ahmed is
in an unusual situation: not only has
he made a statement to the police but he is to give evidence on behalf of the
prosecution at a trial. We agree
entirely with the Crown that this is valuable mitigation. The cases of A.G.-v- Akehurst (29
July, 1996) Jersey Unreported, A.G.-v- Breeze (1st May, 1997)
Jersey Unreported, and Bray-v-A.G. (27th January, 2000)
Jersey Unreported, CofA [2000/16] are helpful in this regard, and we accept the
Crown’s view that our sentencing in this regard should allow for
exceptional circumstances.
6.
We do not
think that the Crown has allowed sufficient mitigation for the fact that this decision has been made in public; we
feel it was a courageous act, and we feel that that requires public
acknowledgment.
7.
The 3
other counts are all concerned with possession; we would only remark that it is
disturbing that cannabis and heroin have had added to them the highly addictive
and deadly, drug crack cocaine.
Ahmed, we accept that the possession of the first amount of heroin,
cannabis and crack cocaine were for personal use. On that basis we are going to
sentence you to 1 month’s imprisonment on count 1; 1 year’s
imprisonment on count 2; and 1 year’s imprisonment on count 3. All those are concurrent, and concurrent
with the more serious offence to which you eventually pleaded guilty. Because of your co-operation we are able
to make a substantial reduction, which also allows for your plea of guilty and
we are going to sentence you overall to 2 years’ imprisonment, and we
order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
8.
We now must
have a look at the suggested deportation order. We have had regard to R-v-Nazari
[1980] All ER 880 CA and to the more recent case of The Queen &
Secretary of State for the Home Department ex
parte Samaroo (17th July, 2001). The fact that you have a failed marriage
is one thing but the particular health situation of your wife, and of the 4
year old child, to whom you are clearly attached, according to the probation
report, leads us to the conclusion that a deportation order would not be
appropriate, and we make no such order.
Authorities
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the
Superior Court of Jersey (2nd Ed’n): pp.119-126.
Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-A.G. [2001]
JLR 373 CofA.
A.G.-v- Akehurst (29 July, 1996) Jersey
Unreported.
A.G.-v- Breeze (1st May, 1997) Jersey Unreported.
Bray-v-A.G.
(27th January,
2000) Jersey Unreported, CofA [2000/16].
R-v-Nazari [1980] 3 All ER 880 CA.
The Queen & Home Secretary re
Samaroo (20th
December, 2000) Unreported Judgment of the High Court of England Case
No. CO/4973/1999.
R-v-Home
Secretary [2001] EWCA Civ 1139