Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20 January 1999

Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats

Gruchy, Rumfitt, Le Brocq,

Tibbo and Bullen

AG

-v-

Gavin David Norman Hartley

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 18 December 1998, following a guilty plea to:

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:

1 count of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978;

Hartley tried to import 16.88 kg. cannabis resin (street value £97,228) (count 1) and 21.55 grams herbal cannabis (count 2). Was arrested by Customs on arrival. 26.85 grams cannabis resin found at his flat (count 3).

Details of Mitigation:

A user who had fallen into debt to his supplier and had agreed to import drugs to cancel the debt. A victim not a dealer. Hard working. Young: five years a large part of a twenty year olds life. Deterrent sentence is not working. Drug strategy stress need of different options for different offenders.

Previous Convictions:

In 1996 one years probation for breaking into chemist and stealing drugs, and in 1997 one years probation for aiding and abetting breaking/entry and larceny of drugs and possession of cannabis resin.

Conclusions:

Count 2: 2 months Youth Detention

Count 3: 1 month Youth Detention

All concurrent

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Count 1: 4 years Youth Detention

(starting point reduced to 7)

Count 2: 2 months Youth Detention

Count 3: 1 month Youth Detention

All concurrent

Need for different options of little relevance to those who import large amount of cannabis. Importers will receive stern punishment. Court must place sentence in context of offence.

The Solicitor General

Advocate Mrs S A Pearmain for the accused

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF: Counsel for the defendant has placed before us a letter from the Crime and Drug Strategy unit and has urged us to take the view that different options should be available to the Courts dealing with the sentencing of offenders such as this defendant. The Court wishes to make it as clear as it can that these considerations have little relevance to the sentencing of those who engage in large scale drug trafficking and who seek to import significant quantities of drugs into the Island, thus helping to spread a habit which is extremely harmful to the interests of the community. Those who take part in such activity must expect to receive, and will receive, stern punishment.

Having said that the Court needs to place the sentencing of each offender in the context of the offence that has been committed. The guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Campbell, MacKenzie & Molloy -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 set a band of sentencing for those engaged in the commercial trafficking of Class A drugs. Band B suggests that a starting point of between 6 and 10 years is appropriate to the importation or dealing in quantities of between 10 and 30 kilograms.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions both of the Solicitor General and of counsel and has reached the conclusion that in this case, having regard to the nature of the offending and to the quantity of the drugs involved, the appropriate starting point is one of seven years.

Hartley, you knew full well what you were doing when you embarked upon this venture. As the Solicitor General has said, you have been given chances by the Courts on previous occasions and you have not changed your behaviour. You behaved stupidly but also wickedly and the Court has to punish you for that behaviour. We have given consideration to the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 but we agree with the Solicitor General that drug trafficking on this scale is so serious that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided. The sentence of the Court is that you will suffer Youth Detention for a period of 4 years in relation to count 1; on count 2, you are sentenced to 2 months Youth Detention; on count 3, you are sentenced to 1 month Youth Detention; all those sentences to be concurrent, making a total of 4 years Youth Detention. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Campbell, MacKenzie & Molloy -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA