Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC045

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20^th February 2007

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo, Bullen, King, Le Cornu and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Pedro Nuno Goncalves Camacho

On 29^th January, 2007, following a guilty plea to 15 counts, the Defendant was sentenced to a total of 6½ years' imprisonment and the Court adjourned an application by the Crown that the Court should recommend deportation (see [2007]JRC021).

Application for an Order recommending deportation.

S. E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        On the 29^th January, 2007, on the application of the defence, we adjourned consideration of the issue of deportation and we have heard submissions on the matter today.

2.        The Court must apply the well known two stage test, laid down in R -v- Nazari [1980] 71 Cr. App. R 87.  The Court must consider first whether the defendant's continued presence in the island would be detrimental to the community, and secondly the impact the deportation would have on the offenders family, having particular regard to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, see Breen and Others v AG 2002/167, in the Court of Appeal. 

3.        We would begin by quoting from the English case of Samaroo v Secretary for State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1139, at paragraph 40, which was quoted with approval in the case of Breen by the Court of Appeal:

"In my judgment the challenge by Mr Samaroo must be rejected.  It is not contended that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to a relevant factor or took into account an irrelevant factor.  What is said is that the justification for a most serious interference with his and his family's rights under Article 8(1) is not made out.  In my judgment the Secretary of State was entitled to regard Class A drug trafficking offences as very serious and ones which are particularly serious and harmful to society.  He was entitled to attach importance to his general policy of deporting those convicted of importation of Class A drugs in order to protect those resident in the U.K. from the harmful effects of drugs and, by deterring others, in the interest of preventing crime and disorder."

We agree with those sentiments. 

4.        We are in no doubt that the defendant's continued presence in Jersey would be detrimental.  Our reasons are first; the seriousness of the offending, including in particular the supplying of heroin, a Class A drug, over a period of 6 months, second; the fact that he committed a number of offences of dishonesty in order to feed his heroin addiction, third; the fact that he has previous convictions both for dishonesty and for possession, albeit not supplying, of controlled drugs, and fourth; that he was assessed as being at medium risk of re-offending by the Probation Report. 

5.        The Court must, of course, balance against that finding the impact which deportation would have on the defendant's family.  The defendant is 28, he was born and brought up in Madeira with his parents and three brothers, but all of his parents and family remain in Madeira.  He came to Jersey 10 years ago because he had a cousin who could offer him accommodation and employment.  He appears to have been regularly employed as a tiler on a self-employed basis, but most significantly he has a girlfriend of 4 years' standing and they have a child some 18 months old.  We have seen a letter from the girlfriend who was born in Jersey and, although of Portuguese parentage, she does not speak Portuguese.  It is clear, from what we have been told, that the relationship has been under strain as a result of these recent events, but the girlfriend says that she is willing to give the relationship a chance on his release.  It is clear that, if he is deported, this will impact upon his relationship with his son unless, at that time following his release, she follows the defendant to Madeira.

6.        We have been referred to a number of cases which we have considered.  But the fact remains that this was serious offending and in our judgment the need to prevent detriment to the island outweighs the hardship which would be caused to the girlfriend and to her child, as well as to the defendant in this case.  We do not think deportation would be disproportionate in all the circumstances and we therefore make the recommendation.

Authorities

R -v- Nazari (1980) 71 Cr. App. R 87.

European Convention on Human Rights.

Breen and Others v AG 2002/167.

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