AG v de Gouveia [2003] JRC 113 (04 July 2003)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You were disqualified from driving on the th April, 2002. You took no notice of that because on the 2 nd May, you were stopped driving a motor cycle. You appeared in court on that charge on the 21 st November, and you were bailed. You took no notice of that either, because you drove a motor vehicle again on 3 rd and 4th December. On each of these occasions you were uninsured so that the consequences if you had had an accident would have been very serious for anyone you injured.

2. On that last occasion, on 4 th December, you were found in possession of a gram of heroin. The Crown accepts your version that you were looking after these drugs for a friend, who thought the police were watching him.

3. In relation to that drug offence your advocate says this was not a case of commercial dealing, because you were not being paid, and indeed it is not known whether the person was a dealer or simply a user of drugs. What your advocate says is correct and, therefore, the Rimmer [2001] JLR373 guidelines are not strictly applicable. But you looked after this quantity of heroin in order to help someone else escape possible capture.

4. It is therefore a serious offence and we think that the Crown's conclusions of 2 years' imprisonment on that count are absolutely correct, albeit that we have not taken the starting point of 7 years.

5. As to the motoring offences, these showed a complete disregard of the law. You offended repeatedly and whilst on bail. Again we think that the Crown's total sentence of 12 months' imprisonment is correct. We think that a sentence of 12 months' on count 6 is too high, because that is the maximum allowed by law and you have pleaded guilty and therefore are entitled to a discount.

6. Conversely, we think the sentence on count 7, that is your third offence of driving uninsured, is far too low. The maximum for that offence is 18 months' and yet the Crown has only asked for 3 months', and it is the offence of driving without insurance that can have such serious consequences. We intend to impose a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment on that account.

7. Finally, we have, of course, had regard to the totality of your sentence, but standing back and looking at all that has occurred and notwithstanding all the mitigation that has been put forward by your advocate, which we have carefully considered, we think that the overall sentence moved for by the Crown is correct.

8. Therefore the sentence of the Court is as follows: Count 1: 3 months' imprisonment; count 2: 3 months' imprisonment; count 3: £50 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default, concurrent; count 4: 6 months' imprisonment; count 5: 6 months' imprisonment; count 6: 9 months' imprisonment; count 7: 12 months' imprisonment. All of those to be concurrent, making 12 months' in all on that indictment.

9. As to disqualification the Crown has moved for 2 years. This would mean no effective disqualification because you would be in prison for the whole of that period. We therefore impose a disqualification of 3 years on Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 concurrent. This will mean that in broad terms you will be prevented from driving for about a year after you come out of prison.

10. On the second indictment, count 2, you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment consecutive to the sentence on the first indictment making 3 years in all. We order the destruction and forfeiture of the drugs. Authorities Rimmer and ors -v- AG [2001] JLR373. Welsh -v A G (4 th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/72]. A G -v- Viveiros (19 th February, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/42]. A G -v- Le Lai (22 nd February, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/48]. Morgan and Schlandt -v-A G (2001) JLR 225 . Page Last Updated: 23 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII