2002/69

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25^th March, 2002.

The Attorney General

-v-

Amanda Jane Cole

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 15^th February, 2002 following a guilty plea to:

Age:     36.

Details of Offence:

Arrived at the airport with 180.21 grams of heroin concealed internally.  Average purity by weight 72% (Police National Average 45.7%).  Street value of between £54,063 and £81,094.  Defendant was travelling on false identity, supported by false birth certificate.  Following a personal search defendant eventually admitted she was concealing heroin internally and removed two condoms containing four packets of heroin from her vagina. Following examination by police surgeon, three further packages were removed from her rectum.  On legal advice she made a “no comment” interview.  Pleaded guilty on indictment.

Details of Mitigation:

Abusive childhood, following her father’s violence she was put into care at an early age.  Began to abuse alcohol by 16, and use of drugs in her 20’s,  Class A and B.  Following divorce she commenced a 12 year violent relationship with a drug addict who fractured her jaw after one particularly vicious attack.  Drug and alcohol report described her as emotionally disturbed as a result of a disruptive childhood.

Previous Convictions:

Bad criminal record.  24 previous convictions comprising 72 offences, mainly theft and fraud.  Two previous drugs offences.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.R.G. Deacon for the defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This is yet another case of a defendant from England with a long-standing drug addiction being persuaded by drug dealers, to whom she was indebted, to bring heroin to Jersey in order to clear or reduce her drug debt.   She was also threatened, but as the Court has said on previous occasions, threats in such cases do not count as mitigation because the person has put himself, or herself, in such a situation by reason of drug taking.

2.        We must first consider the correct starting point. The amount involved was 180 grams of heroin. According to the guideline case of Rimmer, Lusk and Bade (2001) JLR 373 CofA, that falls within the 100 to 250 grams band, with starting points varying from 10 to 13 years.

3.        The Crown has suggested a starting point of 12 years based entirely on the amount.  We think that is too high: the Court must also take into account the nature and degree of the involvement of the defendant in drug trafficking, and we are satisfied that the defendant in this case was a courier, and nothing more.

4.        In the circumstances, we think that a starting point of 11 years is correct, to reflect her degree of involvement and the amount of drugs involved.  In mitigation, Miss Deacon pointed to the guilty plea.  However this is one of these cases where drugs were concealed internally, and therefore a guilty plea was unavoidable.   The Defendant does not have any previous convictions for drug dealing, although she does for possession of drugs, and of course she has an appalling record for dishonesty.

5.        Miss Deacon also referred to her client’s very unfortunate background of abuse, both as a child and as an adult, and we take that into account, as, most importantly, do we take into account the very determined efforts she has made since being in prison to address her problems, including her drug addiction, and we certainly hope very much that that will continue so that, when she comes out of prison, she can start afresh.

6.        We have also taken into account the other mitigation which appears on the papers before us, and in all the circumstances we think that a deduction of 4 years from the reduced starting point of 11 years is correct, so would you stand up please.   The sentence of the Court on the one count you face is one of 7 years imprisonment.   We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  I should add - although the defendant has gone - that we, of course, also took into account the letters from the daughter and from the defendant herself.

Authorities

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade –v- A.G. [2001/148]; (2001) JLR 373 CofA.