Jersey Judgment

AG v Oliveira [2005] JRC 047 (15 April 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Sentence reduced to eighteen months' imprisonment due to mitigation; deportation recommended as continued presence is detrimental and not disproportionate given lack of ties to Jersey.

Court disposition

convicted

Orders

  • eighteen months' imprisonment
  • recommendation for deportation at conclusion of sentence
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Unknown Defendant

Defendant Counsel: Mrs Pearmain

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Length: 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Mitigation sought based on youth, naivety, guilty plea, remorse, and attempts to overcome addiction. Argument to reduce starting point by one year.
Respondent
Crown maintained five-year starting point as accurately reflecting the facts. Emphasized risk of re-offending and detrimental impact of continued presence in Jersey.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey

    Sentencing for importation of heroin considers quantity, intent, and mitigation.

  2. 02

    Morgan and Schlandt v. AG; Monteiro v. AG

    Deportation justified where continued presence is detrimental and not disproportionate to private life.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Sentence reduced to eighteen months' imprisonment due to mitigation; deportation recommended as continued presence is detrimental and not disproportionate given lack of ties to Jersey.

Obiter and limits

  • Defendant was naïve and used by an older addict.
  • Attempts to overcome addiction noted but unsuccessful.
  • No relatives or significant ties in Jersey.

Court disposition

convicted

  • eighteen months' imprisonment
  • recommendation for deportation at conclusion of sentence
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2005] JRC 047

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. The Court accepts that you imported this comparatively small amount of heroin at the request, and under the direction, of an older, more sophisticated, heroin addict. The plan was to share the heroin between you; it was not a case of commercial trafficking.

2. Mrs Pearmain has argued that we should drop the starting point by a year, but we feel that the Crown has accurately reflected what occurred in this case by taking a starting point of five years. In mitigation, you have pleaded guilty and you are a young man, still. You were naïve and used by an older man. We have read your letter of remorse and we note that you have tried several times to conquer your heroin addiction. We have had regard to the contents of the background report and all the mitigation that appears in the papers before us. All in all, we think we can allow slightly more by way of mitigation than was allowed by the Crown and we therefore impose a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment.

3. We turn next to the question of deportation. We have no doubt that your continued presence in Jersey would be detrimental to Jersey. You have a heroin addiction of some years' standing. You have tried several times to beat it but so far unsuccessfully. You lost a job recently through your addiction and you have had no regular work record whilst you have been in Jersey. The background report says that you are at medium to high risk of re-offending and we agree. That is why we conclude your continued presence would be detrimental. As to the impact of deportation on your private life: you have only been here for about a year; you have no relatives in Jersey; all of your family including your mother and step-siblings are in Madeira, where you were born and brought up. In our opinion, therefore, it would not be disproportionate to deport you. We, therefore recommend deportation at the conclusion of your sentence. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2 nd Ed'n, updated to Nov 2003): pp.91-101. Morgan and Schlandt v. AG (24 th April 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/88] AG v. Monteiro (27 th April 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/90]. Monteiro v. AG (7 th August 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/177]. R v. Nazari [1980] 2 All ER 880. Page Last Updated: 14 Jul 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Morgan and Schlandt v. AG (24th April 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/88]

Case cited

AG v. Monteiro (27th April 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/90]

Case cited

Monteiro v. AG (7th August 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/177]

Case cited

R v. Nazari [1980] 2 All ER 880

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.