Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/42

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th March, 2000.

 

Before:    Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats

                 de Veulle, Le Ruez, Rumfitt, Potter, Quérée,

                 Le Brocq, Le Breton, and Allo.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Michael Thomas Kenward.

 

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 2^nd December, 1999, following a guilty plea entered on 29^th October to:

 

1 count of:      being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:

                    Count 1: heroin.

 

Age:  59

 

Plea:  Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

Defendant arrived in Jersey off evening flight from Heathrow.  Drugs detector dog indicated strong interest in seat 17A on the aircraft.  Defendant, who had been stopped by Customs officer, asked to confirm he sat in seat 17A.  Said he had nothing to declare and could not explain.  Searched.  Found to be carrying heroin strapped to his genitals.  Also carrying heroin in hollowed out heels of the shoes he was wearing and a second pair in his luggage.  Total amount 307.06 grams between 75% and 81% purity by weight worth £92,118 at street level if sold in score bags.  Highest purity by weight of heroin since records began - police national average 38.8%.  Also found in possession of £1,040.00 in cash.  Defendant co-operative with interviewing officers.  Defendant had lived last 4 years in Thailand.  Had exhausted his retirement savings.  Said he had been approached by a man in Thailand who had befriended him.  The man had paid defendant's flight to London to visit his pregnant daughter.  Defendant became man's debtor.  Man offered defendant chance to clear debt and earn money.  Defendant and man flew to London wearing shoes with heels hollowed out and filled with polystyrene.  In London, heroin substituted in heels and additional heroin strapped around defendant's genitals.  Defendant said he didn't know it was heroin but knew it was something illegal because of the way he was asked to hide it.  He said he needed the money.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Defendant will be 60 in August 2000.  No previous convictions whatsoever.  Typical "mule": naïve and in debt.  Duped into trafficking by a man who befriended him.  Mere courier.  Was as co-operative as he could be: gave all the information which was within his knowledge.  Named his supplier, and instructed that this fact should be made known in open court.  Health problems: benign tumour under ribs, arthritis.  Imprisonment would be unpleasant, having named his supplier.  By this conviction, he had wrecked a previously exemplary life and most of his family had disowned him.  Extreme remorse (letter read out from defendant to Court).

 

Previous Convictions:  None

 

Conclusions:

 

Pre-sentencing - confiscation order in sum of £1,040.00 to be paid in accordance with Article 14A of the 1988 Law as amended into the Drug Trafficking Confiscation's Fund.  Starting point 14 years' imprisonment less 2 years for guilty plea.  Further reduction of 2 years for co-operation, age, character and 3 years for naming his supplier and doing so in open Court.  Total of 7 years' imprisonment.  Forfeiture and destruction of drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

Starting point correct.  Crown had if anything been generous re discount for age and co-operation.  Naming of supplier and in open Court merits further reduction - 4 years.  6 years' imprisonment in all: forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate

Advocate N.J. Chapman for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF: The Court will make a Confiscation Order in the sum of £1,040 and will deliver its reasons for arriving at that conclusion in due course.

 

[The Court then heard further submissions from Counsel]

 

In considering the starting point for sentencing in this case we have had regard to the Court of Appeal decision in Campbell & Others -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA..  This was a substantial quantity of heroin and we agree with the Crown Advocate that 14 years' imprisonment is the appropriate starting point.  The misery which would have resulted if this quantity of heroin had reached the streets is substantial.

 

                        On the other side of the coin, Kenward is a first offender who has blighted his life by this act of folly.  We think that the Crown Advocate has made the appropriate (if slightly generous) deductions for the mitigating factors of age and co-operation.  There remains the naming of the supplier and the acknowledgement in open court that he has done so.  Much of the drug trafficking trade rests upon a basis of fear and intimidation.  It is in the public interest that those who are brought to justice should be encouraged to give information and to be seen to be giving information about suppliers and those higher up the chain.  In the judgment of the Court it is worth a substantial discount and we propose to reduce the sentence which would otherwise have been imposed by 4 years for that factor alone.

 

                        Kenward, stand up please.  The sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for a total of 6 years' for the offence to which you have pleaded guilty.  The Court orders the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Authorities

 

A.G. -v- Le Tarouilly (2^nd December, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Schorah & Wright (22^nd February, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Lunt (22^nd June, 1998) Jersey Unreported. 

A.G. -v- Dowse (20^th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

Campbell & Others -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

A.G. -v- Bray (8^th November, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

Bray -v- A.G. (27^th January, 2000) Jersey Unreported.