Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

22 February 1999

Before: FC Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Gruchy, Herbert, Potter, Quérée,

Le Brocq, Tibbo, Bullen and Le Breton

AG

-v-

Arthur James Schorah

Michael Derek Wright

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 8 January 1999, following guilty pleas as follows:

ARTHUR JAMES SCHORAH

1 count 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:

Age: 54

Details of Offence:

Concealed drugs internally - 6 packets containing total of 168.37 grams heroin (42% by weight diamorphine) = 1683 score bags. Value £50,511 at £300 per gram. Total for self and co-accused: 273.57 grams - value £82,071.

Details of Mitigation:

Previous convictions but none for drugs. Ancillary involvement - no benefit to self - simply helping a friend (friendship of nearly 50 years). Distant from source of supply. Co-operative. Pleaded guilty.

Previous Convictions: None

Conclusions:

7 years imprisonment. Starting point 11 years - 4 years deducted for available mitigation.

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Conclusions granted. Referred to p.144 of Campbell. Starting point should be 13 years as for co-accused. Jurats divided. Some said 9 years but majority felt 7 years reflected correct sentence.

MICHAEL DEREK WRIGHT

1 count 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:

Age: 53.

Details of Offence:

Concealed drugs internally - 4 bags containing total of 105.20 grams of heroin (39% by weight diamorphine) = 1052 score bags - value £31,560 at £300 per gram. Involved co-accused in offence. Total for both accused 273.57 grams - value £82,071. Several previous drugs convictions. Would have received £2,000 plus cancellation of £3,500 drugs debts.

Details of Mitigation:

Co-operative. Pleaded guilty. Heroin addict

Previous Convictions: Drugs offences

Conclusions:

Conclusions granted. Starting point 13 years - 2 years deducted for available mitigation.

TJ Le Cocq Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate RG Morris for AJ Schorah

Advocate JC Gollop for MD Wright

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Michael Derek Wright and Arthur James Schorah were stopped and questioned by a Customs Officer as they arrived as foot passengers from the Condor ferry from Poole on 2^nd September, 1998. Wright appeared to be very nervous.

Following positive tests for opiates and cannabis in both cases an X-ray examination showed that each man was carrying controlled drugs. After a period of hours each man passed in bowel movements the bags which they had taken internally. Wright had four packets which contained, on analysis by the States Analyst, 105.20 grams of heroin with a purity of some 39%. Schorah had six packets containing 168.37 grams of heroin which had a purity of some 42%. Heroin apparently sells in Jersey at between £160 and £200 per gram. It is usually purchased in score bags which contain one-tenth of a gram and these retail for approximately £30 each. Each score bag gives two or three individual doses, so if we look at this in practical terms, Wright’s consignment could have been used to supply 3,156 individual doses; and those bags carried by Schorah could have been used to supply 5,049 individual doses. The purity of this heroin is higher than the national average of some 35% but apparently could not have been cut further.

We have been referred to the milestone case of Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA, but I will cite from a different passage to that given to us by the learned Crown Advocate. At p144 of that judgment the Court of Appeal said this:

Wright and Schorah came to this Island for one purpose which was to import heroin. Wright says that one of the packages was for his own personal use. If we believe that, we have to accept that had he been successful he would have returned to Liverpool, with this personal amount of heroin, passing again through the customs at Poole. Neither man has named his supplier and Wright has already served several lengthy prison sentences for drug offences. He was sent to prison for two years by the District Court of Stockholm for importing a kilo of cannabis into Sweden. Three years later he received six years for importing amphetamine sulphate into Sweden. In 1991 he received a seven year sentence from the Appeal Court of Belgium for possessing 52 kilos of cannabis which he was intending to deliver to Denmark. He is a heroin addict.

Schorah has no previous drug offences on his record and, surprisingly, has never been sentenced to imprisonment.

According to their story once they arrived in Jersey and Schorah had telephoned his contact in Liverpool, he was to hand his drugs to Wright who would then go to the seafront outside the ‘Grand Hotel’ and hand the drugs over to an unnamed third party. Wright says that he is heavily in debt. Part of the deal, he says, was to pay off a drug debt of £3,500. He is dependent on incapacity benefit from the DHSS who also pay his rent. He had, in that context, surprisingly, £421 on him when he was arrested and of course we have made a Confiscation Order in that sum. He says that he would have benefited - if one accepts his story - by £5,500 for this crime, to include the repayment of the alleged debt.

Schorah is viewed by the Crown in a different light to Wright, and on the facts presented to us by the Crown and from the detailed Probation Report, that view appears to have some substance. We feel, however, with respect to the learned Crown Advocate, that the starting point for both should be 13 years, following the clear guidelines of the Court of Appeal in Campbell.

Wright has very little to offer by way of mitigation. He has pleaded guilty and has been superficially co-operative. We are prepared to reduce his sentence by a small amount. Schorah is entitled by way of mitigation, perhaps, to a larger reduction. The learned Crown Advocate spoke of the exceptional ancillary nature of his involvement.

The Jurats are not unanimous on Schorah; some would have sentenced him to nine years but the majority feel that the conclusion of the Crown reflects adequately the secondary rôle that he has played.

Stand up, please. Wright, you are sentenced to 11 years imprisonment. Schorah, you are sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

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

AG -v- Lunt (22 June 1998) Jersey Unreported [1998.130]

AG -v- Le Tarouilly (2 December 1996) Jersey Unreported