A mother who replied to two text messages her partner received from people he was supplying drugs to – in order to avoid them turning up at her family home – came “dangerously close” to ending up in prison herself.
Corey Le Poidevin, 27, and Donna Enticott, 39, were charged with being concerned in the supply of cannabis or cannabis resin between 6 February 2020 and 26 June 2020.
The couple were arrested and their mobile phones seized during an investigation on 26 June 2020.
Enticott’s phone - which was used by both of them – was investigated and messages were found containing slang terms commonly associated with drug use.
Le Poidevin accepted “full responsibility” for the drug deals, in which his partner only had a “limited role”.
It was accepted by Enticott that she had sent two replies personally, in response to requests for cannabis, in order to avoid customers potentially turning up at the family home if left unanswered.
Pictured: The case was sentenced under the Richards Guidelines. The Prosecution was not able to quantify what volume of cannabis had been supplied to others, so chose the lowest band, which ranges from 0.1g to 2kg.
Le Poidevin’s Defence Advocate, Liam Roffey, told the Court that his client had been very “candid and honest” throughout the investigation, which gave confidence that the extent of his criminal behaviour was before the Court.
A GBA Officer noted that the evidence on Enticott's phone showed a “small network of customers they knew could supply them with the controlled drugs they required”.
“You are not sentencing a commercial enterprise or an individual who made a vast amount of profit or personal gain,” argued Advocate Roffey.
“There was a small group of customers, no more than 10 people.”
Advocate Roffey said his client suffered with his mental health and had used cannabis to alleviate his pain. He has been in receipt of prescribed medicinal cannabis for the last four months, which he said had made a big difference to Le Poidevin’s life.
“He wants me to make it abundantly clear that it was him, not his partner, who was selling the cannabis. He is ready to take full responsibility and bear the brunt of the consequences.”
Defence Advocate Chris Green, representing Enticott, reiterated the point that his client had played a limited role in the supply of drugs.
“She is very much a bit-part player with a limited walk-on role in this offending. Le Poidevin’s phone was broken and he would use her phone with her consent.
“On a couple of occasions, she chose to reply because Miss Enticott did not want those messages to go unanswered and have customers turning up at her address.”
Pictured: Le Poidevin was sent to Les Nicolles Prison for 21 months, while Enticott's nine month sentence was suspended.
He conceded that Enticott “had shown a blasé attitude” towards her partner’s unlawful offending, but reiterated that there was “no evidence to say she was involved in the supply to any significant amount.”
“Her role in what was itself a small operation was pretty tiny," he concluded. It was this that ultimately made the difference between the two of them.
After more than one hour of deliberation, Judge Catherine Fooks and the nine Jurats sentenced Enticott to nine months in prison, but suspended the charge for three years.
Enticott – who has young children with Le Poidevin – was assessed as having a low likelihood of reoffending. The Court also noted the needs of their children and of their unborn child, describing this as a significant mitigating factor.
However, Le Poidevin’s previous drug offending counted against him, as did his dominant role in the supply charges.
The Court also took a dim view of his medicinal cannabis use, saying he had simply found a way to legally feed his drug dependency rather than confronting the root issue.
Le Poidevin was sentenced to 21 months in Les Nicolles Prison.
READ MORE:
FOCUS: Why are drug offences sentenced the way they are?
FOCUS: The reasons behind the boom in medicinal cannabis prescriptions
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.