AG v Oliveira [2005] JRC 047 (15 April 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 047
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 PearmainAttorney General
ProsecutorAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Length: 18
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for importation of heroin
- 02
mitigation factors in sentencing
- 03
grounds for deportation
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
Legal principles
- 01
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey
Sentencing for importation of heroin considers quantity, intent, and mitigation.
- 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.
Court record
Judgment
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
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.