Jersey Unreported Judgments

COURT OF APPEAL

21 January 1999

Before:J M Collins, Esq, QC, (President)

R C Southwell, Esq., QC, and

Miss E Gloster, QC

Graeme David Griffin

-v-

AG

Advocate P de C Mourant for the Appellant

Advocate A J N Dessain on behalf of the

AG

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: On 31 July 1998, Graeme David Griffin pleaded guilty before the Inferior Number of the Royal Court to two counts of being knowingly concerned in the importation of cannabis resin; one count of being in possession of cocaine and one count of being in possession of cannabis resin and one count of taking a postal packet as a postal officer.

The offences in respect of the importation of drugs were offences against the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972. The offences in respect to the possession of drugs were offences against the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978; and the offence in respect of the postal packet was against the Post Office (Jersey) Law, 1969. The appellant was remanded for sentence to the Superior Number, which Court passed sentence on 28 August 1998. The sentence in respect of the offence against the Post Office (Jersey) Law, 1969 was one of 5½ years imprisonment; the sentences in respect of importation of controlled drugs were of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment in each case and those in respect of the possession of controlled drugs were of 4 months imprisonment in one case and of 1 week imprisonment in the other. All of these sentences were expressed to run concurrently. Leave to appeal was granted by the Bailiff on 28 October 1998.

The appellant was at the time 39 years of age and had been employed in the Post Office all his working life. He started as a telegram boy soon after leaving school and then became a postman when 18 years of age, in which employment he remained until his discharge as a result of these convictions.

The appellant, who is married to a wife who suffers from multiple sclerosis, had been an occasional smoker of cannabis as was his wife who found it of help in combating the symptoms of her illness.

Something over four years ago the appellant met Douglas Hamilton Corbett, and the two of them devised and carried out a means by which they manipulated the postal service so as to bring about the major importations of cannabis into the Island which are the subject of these counts. This happened on two occasions, on the second of which they fell into the hands of the customs officers so that they came before the Court for plea and sentence. The device was for a parcel to be sent from the mainland addressed to a fictitious addressee but to a genuine address in Jersey. On this occasion a house in Le Grand Pré, La Grande Route de Cause, St. Clement, was selected and delivery was to be intercepted by the appellant on his rounds and taken to his home from where it would be collected by Corbett.

The events which led to its discovery were as follows. On 13 December 1998, customs officers aided by a dog examined the incoming mail at the Postal Headquarters; the dog indicated a particular parcel as containing drugs. It was opened and found to contain 20 blocks of cannabis resin weighing in total 4.964 kilos with a street value of some £28,000. It constituted therefore a major importation. An effort had been made to mask its smell by soaking the inner wrapping in coffee. The officers took possession of the parcel and its contents and on the following day prepared a sham parcel for substitution by way of a "controlled delivery" and re-introduced it into the mail system at the mail headquarters. The address in question was on the appellants parcel round and it was he who took up the parcel with other mail for delivery.

He drove his van to Le Grand Pré and made a normal delivery to a house opposite that to which the parcel was addressed, but he made no delivery at that address itself. He was then followed to du Parcq Court, Bagatelle Road, St. Saviour, where he walked from his van to his own flat at no. 4 with the substitute parcel under his arm. He soon afterwards left his flat and walked to his van and then was brought to a halt by the officers and arrested. He was taken back to the flat by three officers to whom he further admitted that he thought that the parcel had contained ‘hash’. He told the officers that Douglas Corbett was to collect the parcel and he admitted that they had done the same a month before with a similar quantity also addressed to the same address. In respect of the first of these incidents he had been paid £400 and in respect of the second he was expecting to retain a quantity of the drug for his wifes use and probably his own.

The practice was for Corbett to take it away in a holdall which had been returned empty ready to take this second importation. The officers then waited for Corbett to arrive, the appellant having agreed to co-operate in his apprehension. As the appellant had predicted, Corbett telephoned later in the afternoon and was no doubt told by the appellant that he had the delivery. This was an act of co-operation which was of real benefit to the authorities in that it would have been easy for the appellant to indicate at least by his tone that all was not well with their plan. Shortly afterwards Corbett attended at the flat and was given the holdall by the appellant and after having left was himself arrested, the holdall being of course found to contain the substitute parcel. Various small items of drugs were found in the appellants flat which led to the charges contained in counts 2 and 3. Thus it was that the appellant pleaded guilty in respect of the two importations: the one which led to his arrest and the previous one and in addition pleaded guilty in respect of the postal offence.

The Crown, in its conclusions, called for sentences of 5 years and 4 years respectively in respect of the two cases of importation and a 5½ years sentence in respect of the postal offence.

The Royal Court considered that the conclusions called for were an excessive sentence in the case of the importations having regard to the guidelines in Campbell, MacKenzie, Molloy -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 (CofA) and held that the appropriate sentence was 2½ years. The bracket suggested by that authority was one of 2 to 6 years in respect of between 1 and 10 kilos, and the Court expressed its surprise as to the conclusions on these counts. These sentences are not the subject of this appeal. This appeal is directed against the sentence in respect of the postal offence only. It is supported by the following arguments:

First, it is said that it is not right to pass a sentence, particularly on a plea of guilty, so close to the maximum sentence for an offence under a statute, in this case Article 33 of the Post Office (Jersey) Law, 1969.

Secondly, that due regard had not been paid to the extent of the co-operation described above. Reliance is placed on authorities which support the appropriateness of a reduction of sentence where the offender has co-operated, in particular where this has led to the conviction of another offender. As a result of his conduct the appellant is being detained in segregated accommodation at La Moye Prison.

Thirdly, it is contended that the sentence is out of line with other cases of breach of trust and that since a breach of trust is inherent in the offence itself such a breach is not an aggravating feature.

Fourthly, it is contended that insufficient weight was given to the family circumstances of the appellant, in particular in the light of the appellants wifes medical condition and that in fact the Royal Court in passing sentence had disclaimed any intention of giving any effect to that aspect. In this last respect we were given a report from Dr Shenkin of 18 January 1999, which describes the present condition of Mrs Griffin, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. She requires the use of two sticks to get about and on occasion she has to use a wheelchair. She, as a comparatively young woman, has had a number of falls in the last four months and is finding it difficult to hold down her job and to make the normal visits to the supermarket. Before the Royal Court as well there was a letter from Dr Gibson of the Division of Medicine at the General Hospital at St. Helier. He described her as having had a significant deterioration in her condition earlier on in 1998, with loss of balance, double vision, and severe dizziness.

The gravity of the postal offence, in our judgment, lies in the appellants misuse of the postal system in which he served, by the device of introducing a false parcel containing drugs into that system for the purpose of completing a drug importation. It is the policy of the courts to do all that they can in order to discourage the continued growth of drug offences; importation being a significant feature in this small island. The misuse of their functions by public servants, be they postmen, or persons employed in connection with the points of entry into Jersey would, if repeated by others, pose very difficult problems for the customs and the police authorities in their fight against this serious social problem. Thus, we consider that such a misuse in this case must be marked by a sentence which recognises the gravity of the offence under appeal, and the need to deter others. There are no comparables to which attention can be directed to cover manipulation of the postal system as distinct from the dishonest abstraction of genuine packets or their contents so that they are not received by the addressees, and we have not found such cases as R -v- Barrick (1985) 7 Cr.App.R. 142 of any particular assistance.

However, we consider that the doubling, and indeed slightly more than doubling, of the period thought appropriate for the importation sentences is excessive and for the postal offence, bearing in mind the need to set the sentence at a point which recognises the need for allowance within the maximum prescribed by law for cases of further gravity, the extent of the co-operation by the appellant in permitting Corbett to walk into the trap represented by the presence of the police in the flat when Corbett telephoned, as well as identifying him by name, and the previous good character of the appellant. It would appear that the Royal Court took such matters into account when arriving at the appropriate sentences for the drugs offences but ignored them when it came to the postal offence.

Without the feature of Mrs Griffins continuing illness, we would have considered a sentence of four years imprisonment would have been appropriate in respect of the sentence under appeal, but having regard to her condition we consider that it is legitimate in this case further to reduce that sentence to one of 3½ years imprisonment. The four year period reflects a five year starting point before mitigation. The cases in which family circumstances are to be taken into account or ignored cannot be defined and it would not be appropriate to seek to set out guidelines. Clearly among the matters to be taken into account, we would include the nature and seriousness of an offence, its consequences and the context generally.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal to the extent of substituting for the sentence of 5½ years imprisonment on count 5 a sentence of 3½ years.

Authorities

Post Office (Jersey) Law, 1969

Thomas: Principles of Sentencing: pp. 30-33, 211-3

AG -v- Akehurst (29 July 1996) Jersey Unreported

R. -v- Barrick (1985) 7 Cr.App.R.(S) 142

AG -v- Swanston (19 October 1998) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Humber (13 January 1978) Jersey Unreported

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