CRIMINAL CASE NO. 424 OF 2011
COURT: The 1st and 2nd defendants, who maintained a plea of not guilty, were found guilty by a jury of six jurors unanimously of trafficking in a dangerous drug.
The narcotic content brought the quantity of drug to just under 200 grammes.
There was a 3rd defendant who was involved in this case. He pleaded guilty at the outset of the trial and was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
Although the facts show that all three defendants were in possession of dangerous drugs, I am of the view that it was the 3rd defendant who was the organiser behind this particular incident, and that these two defendants were involved knowingly in the carriage of the dangerous drugs, but they were not to get any benefits from the actual transaction that was in contemplation.
Prior to sentence I saw that each of them had a clear record, and I sought reports. I wanted a Probation background report and also reports from the Training Centre and the Rehabilitation Centre. I have those reports, and I have looked carefully at the information that is contained therein.
The background report sets out details of their family background, their schooling, their employment, if any, and general information. The Rehabilitation Centre and Training Centre reports cover much the same ground, but with a slightly different emphasis, and in respect of each defendant, the recommendation was that they were considered suitable for detention in a Rehabilitation Centre or a Training Centre.
The 1st defendant had just turned 16 at the time of these offences. She was living with her mother at the time - her parents had separated - and her behaviour, which was very good at primary school, started to deteriorate after she went into Form 1. In Form 2, from about September 2007, her behaviour became gradually worse. It became worse in Form 3. She developed the habit of playing truant. She had to repeat Form 3. This resulted in improved grades and conduct when she went to Form 4. However, again in Form 4 her grades and conduct disintegrated. She also formed a relationship with the 2nd defendant and played truant, and eventually, after an altercation with her mother, refused to go to school at all. It was during this period in April and May 2011 that she says that she tried Ketamine on two occasions.
She was arrested on 8 June 2011, and thereafter was on bail. She was not promoted to Form 5, and had to repeat Form 4, but by July 2012 there was a big improvement in her behaviour and also her grades.
It is quite clear from the report that this defendant is academically able, but lacks perseverance and lacks concentration on her studies unless somebody places her in a very structured environment. The defendant’s mother indicates that she feels that she herself put pressure on her daughter in terms of her schooling, which did not help the daughter. This was a result of the mother’s own problems which were and being dealt with psychiatrically and which appear to have emanated from the period when she separated from her daughter’s father.
The 2nd defendant is rather similar in that he was living with his mother and sisters. He failed to complete Form 4. He took a computer course, which he did not finish. He took various courses under the Youth Pre-employment Training Programme which is run by the Labour Department, but again, he was often absent from those courses. He worked for a very short period as a kitchen assistant and now indicates, through his reporting officer, that he wishes to be a western style chef.
Again, this defendant’s behaviour deteriorated after primary school from about Form 1. His grades became worse, he lacked motivation, and his position was not assisted by the fact that his father died when he was aged 14; it appears from the reports that his behaviour worsened after that time, although having said that, it was not behaviour of such a nature that would be regarded as particularly poor behaviour, but he certainly abandoned his studies and made no effort to continue with courses in which he had enrolled.
The 1st defendant’s position was made more difficult at school because of her relationship with the 2nd defendant. Her relationship with the 2nd defendant effectively led to her being ostracised and/or bullied by other pupils at school. This made her even more reluctant to attend school, and it appears from the reports that she and the 2nd defendant spent a lot of time wandering around shopping malls in an effort to avoid school or supervision.
I have considered the position of both of these defendants and noted that they have similar needs. Each needs to be supervised. Each needs to have vocational training. Each has some ability which has not been brought out to its fullest extent.
I consider that they can be dealt with in a manner that is different to that of the 3rd defendant. They are both young, and from the information in the background reports are clearly in need of guidance far greater than that they were receiving from their families. Each of them started their education with good results and good conduct, but as their school work became more difficult and their personal circumstances became more adult, their grades have worsened and their conduct showed a marked deterioration.
I note that they had no financial advantage or reward from this incident of trafficking. As I said, I am of the view that the person who was the instigator was the 3rd defendant, and I take the view that this is a case where I am justified in departing from the sentencing guidelines to a certain extent and not imposing an ordinary prison sentence.
Each of these defendants is academically able, but for various reasons has failed to show good results. The 2nd defendant in particular is at a crucial point in his development. He needs vocational training and also needs to learn how to persevere in a job or a training programme.
In each case, I am satisfied that the Training Centre programme will provide the educational, ethical guidance and rehabilitation that these two defendants need. A programme in the Training Centre bestows on them supervision, the opportunity to improve their education or complete their education, and provides them with vocational training as necessary; but because of the detention, it also provides them with the punishment which is necessary as a result of the crime that they have committed.
I have noted the material put before me on behalf of the 1st defendant. I note that a lot of those persons who seek leniency for the 1st defendant are not really in a position to actually make judgments of her character at this stage of her development, but I accept that these letters are supportive; of the mother, in particular.
Both the defendants have a supportive family structure. Each of the families can work with the after-care officers at the Training Centre.
In all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to impose a Training Centre sentence in respect of each of the 1st and 2nd defendants, and that is the sentence I pass.
Please refer to CACC360/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.