AG v Vieira [2007] JRC 195 (11 October 2007)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. We declare benefit in the sum of £12,910 and make a confiscation order in that sum. 2. The Court accepts that the circumstances in which you came to be involved in drug dealing were very unusual, and that you were, initially, a very reluctant participant, as described by the Crown. However the fact remains that after a while you began dealing and you were found in possession of 217 grams and had already supplied something in the region of 50 grams. The applicable Rimmer brackets are 10-13 years for 100-250 grams and 11-14 years for 250-400 grams. We agree with the Crown that the correct starting point is one of 12 years. 3. In mitigation Mr Winchester has raised a number of matters on your behalf. He has referred to the unusual circumstances in which this began, your immediate admissions and the fact that you took the police to where the heroin was stashed, to your co-operation during interview, to the fact that you have no previous convictions and you have a good work record, which is referred to in the background report, that you are clearly remorseful for what you have done, and that you are assessed as being at low risk of re-offending and you do not have a drug habit. Added to that there is the fact that you have, as Mr Baker has stated, given assistance to the police by naming the supplier and organiser and providing the names of persons to whom you had supplied drugs. The Court has repeatedly said that where defendants give information of this sort, and are willing to admit to that in public, the Court will give a substantial discount. Nevertheless we think that, in all the circumstances, the Crown has made allowance for all these matters and therefore we think that the sentence moved for is correct. 4. The sentence of imprisonment is one of 5 years' imprisonment, concurrent on every count. 5. We must next consider the question of deportation. This was a very serious offence because of the amount of the heroin. Again Mr Baker has referred us to the comment in the English case of R v Carmona [2006] EWCA Crim 508 , that even one serious offence may lead to the conclusion that an offender's presence is detrimental, even if he is at low risk of re-offending. We find that your continued presence would be detrimental. We next have to consider your rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and those of your family. You were born and brought up in Madeira, you came to Jersey about 7 years ago, and you have been here since. You have met and lived with your girlfriend, who moved here 10 years ago, being Portuguese, although not from Madeira. You have a 3 year old son together. There is no extended family in Jersey and we find that there would be no reason why your partner and son should not accompany you to Portugal, or Madeira, on your release, given that she is Portuguese and, no doubt, your son will be brought up speaking Portuguese as well as English. So we find that deportation would not be disproportionate. But ultimately a recommendation for deportation is matter of discretion. On whether to make a recommendation the Jurats are divided, but the majority find that, because of the fact that you supplied useful information to the police and because of the fact that you are in addition willing to acknowledge this in open Court, thereby enabling the Court to send a message that it pays to give such assistance, the Court has decided not to make a recommendation in this case. However you must realise that this is your last chance, if you re-offend when you are released, then you will be deported. 6. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Rimmer, Lusk and Bade v AG [2001] JLR 737. R v Carmona [2006] EWCA Crim 508 . European Convention on Human Rights. Page Last Updated: 20 Jul 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII