The Attorney General v David Camacho Sa

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 17 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] JRC 229
• Date: 17 November 2000

[2000] JRC 229

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

Before:

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle and Bullen

The Attorney General

and

David Camacho Sa

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A.D. Hoy for the accused.

Authorities

A.G. v Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie (1995) JLR 136 C of A.

Archbold (2000 Ed'n): para. 5–150: p.549.

1 count of: being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:

Count 1: cannabis resin.

2 counts of: possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

Count 2: cannabis resin.

Count 4: cannabis resin.

4 counts of: possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

Count 3: cannabis resin.

Count 5: cannabis resin.

Count 6: methadone.

Count 7: cannabis resin.

[On 25 ^th August, 2000, the accused, having pleaded guilty to counts 2, 4 and 7, the Crown withdrew the remaining counts].

Age: 24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 29 ^th April, 2000, the accused and his girlfriend were observed leaving Jersey with the accused's vehicle travelling on the ferry to France. They returned on 2 ^nd May, 2000, when the accused was kept under observation by police officers. He was observed visiting a number of addresses and, finally, visited his parents' address in St. Peter's Valley. His parents were absent from the Island on holiday. The parents' property included a garage/shed. The accused was detained whilst sitting in a van in a car park in St. Peter's Valley and, when the van was searched, 8 bars of cannabis resin were found on the passenger seat. Search warrants were obtained for the various properties that the accused had attended and at the address of the girlfriend of the accused a personal amount of cannabis resin totalling 4.81 grams was found and the accused admitted that this was his. The search of the parents' address and, in particular, the shed located a carrier bag containing 32 bars of cannabis. Under interview, the accused admitted that he had travelled to Amsterdam with his girlfriend, although she had not known the true purpose of the visit. A friend of the accused had asked if the accused was interested in permitting the use of the shed at his parents' address to store cannabis. The accused was told that he would not be involved in any importation or supply of the cannabis, but that he would be paid for the use of the shed. He was also told that, if he invested in the enterprise, then he would double his investment. The accused's telephone number was passed to a third party in Amsterdam who would contact the accused. The arrangement was that the accused would take £2,000 in cash to Amsterdam and some “Spar” carrier bags. The accused stated that he took a mobile phone with him, but used a different SIM card to avoid detection. Whilst in Amsterdam, he handed over four plastic bags and £2,000 in cash and was told that, upon his return to Jersey, eight bars of cannabis resin would be hanging up in the shed. Upon his return to Jersey, the accused was in the course of delivering the eight bars of cannabis to a...