AG v Gomes (Royal Court : Sentencing (Criminal)) [2025] JRC 052 (21 February 2025)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Fabio Gomez, you are 24 years old and appear to be sentenced for being knowingly concerned in the importation of small amounts of drugs which normally would not warrant appearance before this Court, but of greater significance you appear in respect of a breach of community service in respect of an order imposed by this Court in December 2021, which required you to perform a total of 312 hours of community service within 2 years of that date. That order was, as all community service hours are, a direct alternative to custody. However, you subsequently left the Island having failed to complete those hours.

2. Dealing with the most recent offences briefly, on 4 January 2025 you arrived from London by aeroplane. You were stopped at the airport by a police officer. When your passport was checked through the system, it was noted that an outstanding warrant for your arrest dated March 2023 had not been executed in respect of the breach of the community service order imposed by this Court in December 2021.

3. When you were arrested by the police officer you were belligerent, you swore, and you said you had made a "little mistake" , a reference to the drugs you had imported on this occasion, but you had moved on and changed your whole life.

4. As to the drugs you imported in January, they were indeed small amounts; a quarter of a gram of cocaine at Count 1, less than half a gram of herbal cannabis at Count 2, and 2 grams of cannabis resin at Count 3. Notwithstanding, that the fact that you were importing these drugs into the Island, their total value was only about £100, and they were for your personal use.

5. Normally these matters would, certainly if you were a man of good character, be dealt with by way of a parish hall caution or a fine in the Magistrate's Court. You said that the drugs in question you had forgotten were in your bags and were leftovers from a trip to Spain and a party there on New Years Eve.

6. We accept that, what concerns the Court today is the breach of the community service order. This was imposed for seven drugs offences, including trafficking offences, including importation of cannabis on three occasions, and also possession within intent to supply of a small quantity of MDMA a class A drug. It is not necessary for us to repeat the facts of those offences as they are set out in detail in the published decision of the Royal Court, on 17 December 2021 ( AG v Gomes [2021] JRC 318 ) .

7. In that case, the Crown moved for a total of 2½ years custody and the Court imposed a sentence of 312 hours of community service, instead of and equivalent to a sentence of 24 months' custody/youth detention. The most serious count on the indictment was Count 3 where the starting point, according to the Crown was 6 years' imprisonment, in respect of possession with intent to supply of a small quantity of MDMA.

8. When you were sentenced by the Royal Court in 2021 you were told by the judge that your case was "an exceptional one" and because of particular circumstances you were not going to be sent to custody on that occasion. At paragraph 14, the Court said that you had "a pretty close shave" . You were also told that if you failed to comply with the community service order and did not do what the probation officer reasonably told you to do, then you would be returned to the Royal Court and you knew what the consequences would be, namely a prison sentence. The Court said " it had put its trust in you" , and unfortunately you went on to betray that trust.

9. The breaches of the community service order requiring you to carry out unpaid work were many and various and included failing to appear for work sessions, claiming you had overslept, saying you were unwell without evidence in support and so on. After some months on the scheme, you complained you had received too many hours and said to the manager "people like Putin get away with far more".

10. You were subsequently suspended from the scheme, at a time when you had completed 150 hours and had 162 hours outstanding. Having regard to the circumstances it is clear to us that the community service team gave you a good deal of leeway, particularly on account of your diagnosis of diabetes, but had understandably ultimately lost patience with your non-compliance.

11. The Crown, in its written submissions in respect of the breach which were filed with the Court in March 2023, asked this Court to discharge the outstanding order and impose a number of concurrent sentences of youth detention. When the matter came on for hearing in March 2023 you failed to attend, because you left the Island in breach of the order.

12. Your arrest was ordered and when you appeared before the Court this year on 6 January 2025, you admitted the breach of the community service order and your sentence was adjourned until today. In the meantime, you pleaded to guilty to the three offences of drug importation to which we have already referred before the Magistrate's Court.

13. As you know, the Court generally allows credit for the hours of community service which have been performed by an offender on an application to revoke the order subsequently. Under Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001 we are entitled to revoke the community service order and deal with you and the offence in respect of which the order was made in any manner, in which the offender could have been dealt with for that offence by the Court which made the order.

14. As you were a young offender at the time of the conviction of the matters that led to this order in December 2021, although you were 21 at the time of sentence, the Court did not have the power at that time to impose a sentence of imprisonment, only one of youth detention.

15. Accordingly, today we must impose a sentence of youth detention despite your age, although in custody you will be treated as if you were serving a term of imprisonment in respect of those matters. It is also said that we should treat you as if you were subject to Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 . On the footing that this is the case, we are satisfied that you have failed to respond to non-custodial sentences so that you are unable or unwilling objectively to respond to them, and in those circumstances, we are entitled to impose a sentence of youth detention on you today and indeed it is not suggested by your counsel that we are not.

16. The fact is that you deliberately left the Island in breach of your community service requirements, and we do tend to agree with the probation office's assessment that your letter of remorse reads more like a business proposal than a letter expressing remorse. We learn that you now live as a digital nomad and operate a business involving inviting people to invest or obtain advice from you in relation to foreign exchange transactions.

17. You say in your letter to Mr Le Marrec that you left the Island in full knowledge of your outstanding community service order, because you had a good job opportunity, and you said that when that opportunity came along you " felt that you were stuck between and a rock and a hard place" . But Mr Gomes there was no such dilemma before you. There was no choice available to you. You simply had to complete your community service order, and you decided not to, and today you face the consequence of that poor and, in our judgment, reckless decision.

18. Community service is not an alternative job opportunity - it is a direct alternative to prison. You spurned the chance given you by the Court and you will now, unfortunately, face the consequence of that choice. We have listened with care to all that has been said on your behalf by Advocate Dix, we note that you accept your flagrant breach of the Court's order, and you now understand that what you did by leaving the Island was unacceptable. We note there have been significant and positive changes in your life over the last three years, but we have no option other than to discharge the community service order and impose the following sentences. In relation to the first Indictment: (i) Count 1, 4 months youth detention. (ii) Count 2, 6 weeks youth detention. (iii) Count 3, 12 months youth detention. (iv) Count 4, 2 weeks youth detention. (v) Count 5, 2 months youth detention. (vi) Count 6, 2 months youth detention. (vii) Count 7, 2 months youth detention. All to run concurrent making a total of 12 months youth detention.

19. In addition, in relation to the indictment from this year consecutive sentences of: (i) Count 1, consecutive sentence of 1 month's imprisonment (ii) Count 2, no separate penalty. (iii) Count 3, 2 weeks imprisonment consecutive to Count 1 and Count 3 Making a total of 13 months and 2 weeks imprisonment.

20. We order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

21. We order you to pay the Crown's contribution to the Crown's costs of £1,500 within seven days. Authorities Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 AG v Gomes [2021] JRC 318 Criminal Justice (Community Service Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001 Loi (1937) sur l'atténuation de peines et sur la mise on liberté surveillée Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR AG v Grzegorska [2024] JRC 134 AG v Edwards [2022] JRC 090 AG v Vibert [2010] JRC 234 Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 ] Louis v AG [2010] JRC 170 AG v Le Guillou [2024] JCA 204 Page Last Updated: 25 Mar 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII