[2009]JRC072

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th April 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Sam David Romano

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Romano was seen acting suspiciously.  When told he was being detained for a drug search, he ran off.  He was pursued and arrested.  He was found in possession of 37 ecstasy tablets which he admitted he had obtained from a dealer without payment with the intention of selling them to friends of his for a price sufficient to enable him to pay his dealer and retain five tablets for his own use at no cost to himself.  He also had 44 ecstasy tablets in a matchbox in his sock which he admitted he had taken from a friend who was being searched by the police in order to hide it for him.    He intended to return the matchbox to the friend. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Youth – subject to Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.  No relevant previous conviction.  Young man of potential who had made attempts to put his life back on track.  Had voluntarily referred himself to the Alcohol and drug Service and received a positive report from that service.  Low risk of re-offending.  Genuine remorse.

Previous Convictions:

One previous conviction for driving with alcohol over the prescribed limit.

Conclusions:

Seven year starting point.  Due to exceptional mitigation Crown moved for sentence of 300 hours’ community service on count 2 and 100 hours on count 1, concurrent.  Total 300 hours’ community service equivalent to 23 months’ youth detention.

Total:  300 hours community service.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Confiscation order in the sum of £30 sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs made.

Confiscation to be adjourned to 19^th May, 2009.

R. C. L. Morley-Kirk, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant has pleaded guilty to possession of 86 ecstasy tablets with intent to supply.  He obtained the tablets “on tick” and sold them to friends and friends of friends.  He intended to keep five tablets as his profit.  Some 49 tablets were in a matchbox that he was holding for a friend who was being searched.  He and his friends use ecstasy for recreation.  It was he who collected the tablets but before he had given them out he was spotted by a police officer.  Knowing that he would be in trouble he was frightened and so fled the scene.  He was chased and caught in a bar where he continued to try and get away.  He was eventually placed on the floor and handcuffed, hence the obstruction charge.

2.        The Crown correctly point out that the minimum starting point for this quantity of tablets is 7 years’ imprisonment.  But the Crown itself submit that the wealth of mitigation available to the defendant is such as to make it an exceptional case justifying a non-custodial disposal. 

3.        The defendant is 18 and therefore the provisions of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 apply.  Those provisions require the Court not to pass a custodial sentence unless no other method of dealing with the defendant is appropriate because, in this case, the totality of the offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

4.        The defendant’s mitigation includes his youth, his guilty plea and good character.  He has a supportive family, has well-rounded interests and has achieved academically.  He is in full time employment with career potential and has expressed clear remorse and regret.  Significantly, he voluntarily referred himself to the Alcohol and Drugs Service who confirm that he has made significant changes in his life style so that no further treatment is necessary.  We note that it was the defendant’s effort to turn his life around in the case of AG-v-Fereira that enabled the Court in that case to avoid a custodial sentence.  The defendant in this case has also been assessed at a low risk of re-offending.

5.        We said at the very outset of this case as you heard before your defence Counsel addressed us, that we would not necessarily follow the conclusions of the Crown and had in mind the possibility of imposing a custodial sentence.  This is a large quantity of tablets that were found in your possession.  You need to appreciate the very clear policy of the Court that ordinarily the starting point for an offence of this kind is 7 years in prison.  In our view you are on the brink of serving a substantial sentence.  We have been persuaded however that the mitigation available to you, and having regard to the documents that have been put before us, is sufficient to enable us to make an exception, but you need to know how close you have come to going to prison.  To those young people who consider the recreational use of these dangerous drugs, the Court wishes to convey the view that the consequences of their actions can be very serious indeed, not only for themselves, as you can see, but also for their distressed and supportive families.  It is not smart or intelligent to get involved in drugs.

6.        On count 1 you are sentenced to 100 hours’ community service, which is the equivalent to 4 months’ youth detention.  On count 2 you are sentenced to 300 hours’ community service, which is equivalent to 23 months’ youth detention, concurrent.  Thus you will serve a total of 300 hours’ community service which is the equivalent of 23 months’ youth detention.  We wish to warn you that if you don’t complete your community service or if you re-offend you will be brought back before this Court where you will most certainly be put into prison.

7.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

8.        We adjourn the application for a confiscation order to 19^th of May at 10.00.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-Ferreira 2002/238.