ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
28 October 1998
Before: F C Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff,
and Jurats Myles, Le Ruez, Rumfitt, Potter,
Quérée, Tibbo and Bullen
AG
-v-
Michael Roy Dicker,
Wayne Anthony Driscoll,
Alexander James Justin Wakeham
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded on 2 October 1998, after entering guilty pleas as follows:
MICHAEL ROY DICKER:
2 counts 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
Count 2: herbal cannabis
Age: 25
Details of Mitigation:
Early family difficulties. Left unsupervised as a child. Gap in offending between 1993 and 1998. Had suffered accident and so unable to work from October 1997 and not entitled to Social Security benefits. Desperate for cash. Had been most honest of the three in regard to his involvement and had not attempted to displace responsibility. Co-operative from the outset. A mere courier.
Previous Convictions:
Eight, from 1987, when he was 14. Housebreaking, illegal entry and larceny, assault, public order. One for possession of cannabis. Had served two short prison sentences.
Conclusions:
Starting point 12 years imprisonment. Crown invited Court to allow full discount in each case of one-third for guilty pleas and co-operation.
Count 1:8 years imprisonment
Count 2:12 months imprisonment (concurrent)
Sentence and Observations of the Court: Conclusions granted
WAYNE ANTHONY DRISCOLL:
2 counts 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
Count 2: herbal cannabis
1 count of using a motor vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (count 3).
Age: 20
Details of Mitigation:
Youth (aged 19 when offences were committed). Claimed he bitterly regretted involvement. A young, vulnerable character so typically targeted by people in the drugs trade. Homeless and jobless at the time. Chance to earn £1,000 "irresistible". Merely a courier.
Previous Convictions:
Four, from late 1995. Dishonesty, public order. One for production of cannabis. No record of imprisonment.
Conclusions:
Starting point 12 years imprisonment. Crown invited Court to allow full discount in each case of one-third for guilty pleas and co-operation.
Count 1:8 years Youth Detention
Count 2:12 months Youth Detention, concurrent
Count 3:1 month Youth Detention; 6 months disqualification from driving
Sentence and Observations of the Court: Conclusions granted
ALEXANDER JAMES JUSTIN WAKEHAM:
2 counts 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
Count 2: herbal cannabis
1 count ofpossession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:
Count 4: cannabis in the form of cannabis oil
Age: 23
Details of Mitigation:
Still young at 23. Product of a broken home. No previous convictions for drug-related offences. Last three previous convictions minor, so effectively a gap of some five years in his criminal record. Suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and flashbacks after fishing-boat accident in 1997 wherein he had lost a leg; this had also caused depression, which in turn had affected his employment prospects. Defendant the instrument of others in the undertaking. No evidence that he had been directly in contact with the drugs.
Previous Convictions:
Five, from 1992. Dishonesty, breaking and entering, motoring, public order. No prison record. No convictions for drugs (although Social Enquiry Report pointed at obvious involvement from early age, denied by defendant).
Conclusions:
Starting point 12 years imprisonment. Crown invited Court to allow full discount in each case of one-third for guilty pleas and co-operation.
Count 1:8 years imprisonment
Count 2:12 months imprisonment, concurrent
Count 4:1 months imprisonment, concurrent
Sentence and Observations of the Court: Conclusions granted.
Details of Offences (all accused):
WAKEHAM purchased fast rigid inflatable boat, trailer and tow vehicle, using funds provided to him by persons unknown. Vessel was used to import 55 kilograms of cannabis resin and herbal cannabis. Drugs landed in near-darkness at Archirondel in January 1998. DICKER and DRISCOLL apprehended upon leaving area with the cannabis in rucksacks on their backs, riding motorcycles purchased with funds provided by persons unknown for the purpose of the enterprise. Machine that DICKER riding was uninsured. Subsequent search of WAKEHAMs bedroom revealed small quantity of cannabis oil for personal consumption. DICKER and DRISCOLL were to receive £1,000 each for their part in the affair. WAKEHAM was to receive "money and cannabis".
Largest seizure of cannabis to date in Jersey. Street value over £317,000. Enough to provide over 15,000 individual "deals".
A J Olsen Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate R Tremoceiro for M R Dicker
Advocate A P Roscouet for W A Driscoll
Advocate A Winchester for A J J Wakeham
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This was a sophisticated attempt to import into this Island 55 kilograms of cannabis resin with a street value of approximately £313,600 and also 85.70 grams of herbal cannabis. To give an indication of the importance of this seizure, there was sufficient to supply over 15,000 people. To give an indication of the importance of the deal to those who set it up, they were prepared to fund the purchase of the rigid inflatable boat for £9,200 and lay out £700 and £1,000 for the purchase of two motorcycles.
This was a very important seizure by Customs Officers. It is very clear that the three defendants must have known that they were importing a large amount of illegal drugs and they were prepared to take a risk. Sadly for them that risk has not paid off.
This Court will continue - and is bound to continue - to follow the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in Campbell, Molloy & MacKenzie (1995) JLR 136 CofA. In that case the Court said:
"We agree that in cannabis cases the appropriate starting points in the case of quantities over 30 kg. are a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment…".
And the Court went on to make it clear that no distinction was to be drawn between cases involving importation and those involving supply or possession with intent to supply.
We have carefully considered the reasoned arguments of all three counsel, the references, the social enquiry reports and of course the psychological report on Wakeham. If I may say so, the cases of AG -v- Bain (2 December 1996) Jersey Unreported and AG -v- Perchard and McConnachie (22 November 1995) Jersey Unreported are only of passing interest.
All three counsel have argued strenuously but all are basically agreed that the starting point is right at 12 years and that the one-third reduction for an inevitable guilty plea is generous. However, each counsel has asked for a further year to be taken off the conclusions of the Crown and that must be based on the personal background of each of the accused. I have to say this: if any of the accused had named the people behind this massive importation, we would have made a very substantial reduction in their sentences. They did not and the reason they did not is because this is not a harmless game, but a highly dangerous, vicious trade with pure greed at its base.
We are going to follow the conclusions of the Crown and we must add this: we have found these to be generous.
Driscoll, you are only 20 years old and therefore I have to sentence you under Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Persons) Act. I must tell you that these offences are so serious that they cannot be met with a non-custodial sentence.
I am going to pass sentence on all three of you, so will you please stand up. On count 1, Wakeham and Dicker are sentenced to 8 years imprisonment and Driscoll to 8 years Youth Detention. On count 2, Wakeham and Dicker are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, concurrent, and Driscoll to 12 months Youth Detention, concurrent. On count 3, Driscoll is sentenced to 1 month Youth Detention; also 6 months disqualification from driving. On count 4, Wakeham is sentenced to 1 month’s imprisonment, concurrent. We further order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie (1995) 136 CofA
AG -v- Bain (2 December 1996) Jersey Unreported
AG -v- Perchard and McConnachie (22 November 1995) Jersey Unreported