Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2004]JRC048

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

16^th March, 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Mohammed Ahmed Miah

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 6^th February, 2004, following a guilty plea, entered on 23^rd January, 2004 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 (Jersey) Law 1999;
	Count 1: diamorphine.

 

Age:     21.

 

Details of Offence:

40.07 grams of heroin.  Street value £12,000 - £18,000.  Wholesale value £6,000 - £8,000.  Internal concealment by courier in return for promise of £1,200 reward.  Claimed threats of violence by supplier, although he was not in debt to him.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Youth; first drugs conviction; addict; gave information to the authorities (acknowledged to be genuine, but unlikely to be productive in itself; nevertheless added to the store of general intelligence); agreed that the giving of information should be mentioned in Court.

 

Previous Convictions:

 Various; mainly for dishonesty; first conviction for drugs offence.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

3½ years' imprisonment (8 years' starting point)

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

Court endorsed the dictum in Kenward about the substantial mitigation afforded by open court mention of information given to the authorities by the accused.  Court confirms that mention of threats attracts no mitigation for those who involve themselves in the drugs world.

 

Count 1:

 

C. E. Whelan, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.C. Gollop for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Miah, you imported 40 grams of heroin concealed internally.  Fortunately you were intercepted at the airport but you have a dependency on heroin and you had agreed to undertake this for a fee of £1200.00. 

2.        The Crown has taken a starting point of 8 years, which is at the bottom of the applicable bracket in Rimmer and we agree that that is the correct starting point.

3.        In mitigation you have pleaded guilty from the start and that is to your credit, although it was inevitable given that you were carrying the drugs internally.

4.        You have no previous drug convictions and we take that into account, although you do have other convictions arising, no doubt, partly out of your heroin dependency.

5.        We take account of your youth; you are only 21 and the reports describe you as being naïve and immature and no doubt that played a part in your being led to undertake this activity.

6.        Mr Gollop has asked us to allow something by way of mitigation for the fact that you say you were threatened by your dealer in order to undertake this importation.  He, Mr Gollop, accepts that the Court has said that where a person is in debt to his dealer threats should not be allowed by way of mitigation but he says this is different because you were not in debt, it was just that you were in contact with your dealer and therefore were in a situation where he could choose you and threaten you.

7.        We think there is no such distinction.  The Court's policy is clear; where threats arise on the part of a dealer or on his behalf, no mitigation is allowed and it seems to us there are two clear policy reasons for this. 

8.        The first is that a drug user puts himself in this position.  Anyone who purchases drugs knows that they are moving in an illicit world where threats are an everyday occurrence and they are regularly used.  It seems to us therefore that any person, who by choosing to purchase drugs, puts him or herself in this position cannot later claim that he should be allowed mitigation for some other offence he commits because of those threats. 

9.        Secondly, it is, in most cases impossible to know whether such a suggestion is true.  Save in the rare case of physical evidence, it is impossible for the Crown or the Court to know whether a simple submission by a person that he or she has been threatened by his dealer is true or not.

10.      So for those reasons we are confirmed in our view that the current policy of the Court is correct and no mitigation should be allowed for threats made by or on behalf of a dealer or drug associates. 

11.      There is however one important matter of mitigation in this case upon which Mr Gollop has rightly placed weight, that is that when interviewed you disclosed the names of the various persons who were involved in the importation.  You have given the assistance which has been described by the Crown and by Mr Gollop, and you have been willing to acknowledge that in open Court.  We repeat what the Court said in the case of Kenward:

"There remains the naming of the supplier and the acknowledgment in open Court that he has done so.  Much of the drug trafficking trade rests upon a basis of fear and intimidation.  It is in the public interest that those who are brought to justice should be encouraged to give information and to be seen to be giving information about suppliers and those higher up the chain."

12.      We agree that substantial additional mitigation is due for such activities where, and I emphasise this, the Police are satisfied that the information is genuine.  It is too easy for a defendant to say that another individual was involved in organising the importation.  That individual may not be traceable or may be somebody completely innocent.  The Court will not give credit for such information unless advised by the Police that they believe the information to be genuine.

13.      In this case the Crown through the Police have confirmed that they do regard the information given as genuine and therefore we give the substantial discount to which we have referred.  Having said that and given that there is a starting point of 8 years and taking into account the other mitigation, we think that the Crown has allowed sufficient substantial additional mitigation to reflect your activities.  The overall result is less than half of the starting point and we think that the correct amount has been allowed.

14.      The sentence therefore is 3½ years and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer and Ors -v- AG [2001]JLR373.

AG -v- Sweeney [2003]JRC122.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Edition, updated to November 2003): pp.161-164.

AG -v- Trinidade [2000]JLR N.62.

AG -v- Kenward (6^th March 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/42].