CRIMINAL CASE NO. 220 OF 2010
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before me to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 81.4 grammes of cocaine, being Count 1, and 0.45 grammes of nimetazepam and 0.76 grammes of cocaine, together being subject of Count 2.
The facts of the case are straightforward. On 13 March 2010, police had the defendant’s 12th floor flat in Temple Street under observation. As the defendant exited the lift on his return to the 12th floor, he was intercepted by the police and was searched on suspicion of possessing dangerous drugs.
Inside a shoulder bag carried by the defendant was found a plastic bag containing smaller packets of the cocaine particularised in the 1st count.
Keys were also found in the defendant’s possession, and they were used to gain entry to his flat. In the bedroom of the premises was found a cardboard box containing the smaller amount of drugs the subject of the 2nd count.
The defendant, although originally claiming the drugs were for his own consumption, now admits that he possessed them for the purposes of trafficking.
So far as Count 1 is concerned, I take a starting point of sentence of 8 years 6 months’ imprisonment. There was some suggestion made in the course of mitigation that some part of the drugs may have been for the defendant’s own consumption. That suggestion was, however, not taken forward, and was based simply upon the defendant’s previous convictions for simple possession of dangerous drugs. No sufficient material being placed before me to satisfy me that any particular amount of the drugs charged in respect of either count were for the defendant’s own consumption, I do not take that suggestion into account as mitigation.
Accordingly, the only mitigation of any substance able to be advanced on behalf of the defendant is his plea of guilty. I give him full credit for that, and the starting point of sentence is reduced accordingly to a sentence of 5 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
So far as Count 2 is concerned, I approach sentencing on the basis that the drugs formed a cocktail, and, given the nature and quantity of the combined drugs, warranted a starting point of sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. Given the defendant’s plea, that 24 months’ starting point is reduced to a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment. In my view, if the total amount of the drugs charged in Counts 1 and 2 had been dealt with as one offence, the starting point would not have exceeded 8 years 6 months’ imprisonment.
Accordingly, in considering totality, I order that the sentence imposed in respect of each count be served concurrently.
That results in a totality of sentence of 5 years 8 months’ imprisonment.