De Carvalho v AG

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: The Deputy Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 23 April 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] JRC 87
• Date: 23 April 2007

[2007] JRC 87

ROYAL COURT

(Superior Number)

Before:

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo, Bullen, Clapham, Le Cornu, Newcombe and Liddiard.

Neuza Regina Melim De Carvalho

and

The Attorney General

Advocate R. S. Boddie for the Appellant.

S. E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Authorities

AG v De Carvalho and Ors [2007] JRC 051.

R v Hikmet Bozat [1996] 1 Cr App R(S) 270.

Samaroo v Secretary for State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1139.

AG v Abreu [2007] JRC 081.

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, against a deportation order made by the Inferior Number on 23 ^rd February, 2007, following guilty pleas:

1 counts of: Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 4).

1 count of: Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 6).

The Deputy Bailiff

1 This is an appeal against a recommendation for deportation made by the Inferior Number in respect of the applicant on 23 ^rd February when she was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for two offences; one of being concerned in the supply of heroin and one of possession of heroin.

2 The facts can be briefly stated. The applicant and her husband were arrested at a café. 8 wraps of heroin were found in a purse in their possession. At interview Mr De Carvalho admitted that he had already sold 3 bags of heroin that morning. He also admitted that there was a further amount of heroin at their home. A search was carried out — it was the second search, the first had, in fact, missed the heroin at the home — and some 6 grams of heroin were found at their home. Mr De Carvalho pleaded guilty to supplying three wraps of heroin, to being in possession with intent to supply of the 8 wraps found at the café and to possession with intent to supply of the 6 grams found at the home. The applicant admitted to being concerned in the supply of the 3 wraps by bringing them, together with the 8 other wraps, from the home to the café following her husband's telephone call requesting her to do so, and to simple possession of the 6 grams, which her husband had bought, but of which she was aware and which she had begun using. Both admitted to a dependency on heroin. The husband was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment and recommended for deportation at the end of the sentence. He has not appealed against that decision. The applicant was sentenced to 12 months, as we have said, and also recommended for deportation. She does not appeal against the prison sentence, but does seek leave to appeal against the recommendation for deportation.

3 The background to her application is as follows: she was born and brought up in Madeira but came to Jersey when she was 16. When she was 18 she met her co-accused, now her husband. They started to live together and she became pregnant. They returned to Madeira for the birth of their daughter in December 2003. The three of them then returned to Jersey when their daughter was about 8 months old. However, both the applicant and her husband had to work extremely long hours in order to make ends meet and to pay for childcare. Eventually, in January 2006, they made the decision that their daughter should return to live with the applicant's mother in Madeira, so that they could save more quickly towards a plot that they had bought in Madeira, and where they wished to make their home. The applicant found the separation from her daughter very hard to take and it was at this stage that she started taking heroin. Her husband had been taking it for some time. As is so often the case, the heroin took its grip on her fairly speedily and she soon found herself with a daily dependency. It was in these circumstances that the offences were committed in August 2006.

4 As we have said, it was always the intention of the parties to return to Madeira in due course, once they had saved sufficient money. In those circumstances the husband did not oppose a recommendation for deportation before the Inferior Number and it is accepted that when he is released at the end of December 2007, he will have to return to Madeira. Before the Inferior Number the applicant accepted that she would return to Madeira with her husband at the end of his sentence, but her Advocate argued strongly that no deportation order should be made against her so that she could remain in Jersey and visit him between the end of her sentence, which is 27 ^th April, namely, a few days time, and his release. The plan was, and remains, that the applicant's daughter and her mother should come to Jersey and live with her for that period, thereby enabling the daughter to see...