Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/45

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

9^th March, 2000

 

 

                                      Before:  M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff,

                                      and Jurats de Veulle and Le Breton

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Aaron Nicholas McCool;

Philip Heys.

 

Aaron Nicholas McCOOL:

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 1: cannabis resin.

 

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

                    count 2: cannabis resin.

 

Plea:  Guilty.

 

Age:  26.

 

Details of Offence:

 

A vehicle driven by McCool in which Heys was a front seat passenger was stopped by the police.  A carrier bag containing 10 pieces of cannabis was found under the front passenger seat and a subsequent search revealed a large slab of cannabis resin disguised as a bar of chocolate located in a 'Frosties' cereal box.  The cannabis located in the carrier bag had a total weight of 1,141.5g. with a street value of £6,441.60 (wholesale value £4,851.20).  The cannabis resin found in the 'Frosties' box had a weight of 1,013.52 g. with a street value of £5,720 (wholesale value £4,290).  Heys was also found in possession when searched at Police Headquarters with a personal quantity of cannabis (5.81g.) value £30.  A search warrant executed at McCool's home address resulted in the seizure of a set of 'Tefal' kitchen scales which upon analysis were found to have traces of substances derived from cannabis or the residue of cannabis on them.  Heys made a statement under caution claiming the cannabis in the carrier bag as being his and that he had been requested by a person (that he was not prepared to name) for the sum of £150 to take the cannabis from A to B.  He claimed that McCool had no knowledge of the cannabis.  McCool was totally unco-operative and refused to be interviewed.  Forensic analysis located Heys' fingerprints on the outside of the carrier bag and McCool's fingerprints on the wrappings of the cannabis contained within the carrier bag.  Following indictment and the pleas of guilty the accused claimed that the cannabis resin in the 'Frosties' box belonged to Heys and he was carrying it for somebody from A to B and that McCool was unaware of this.  McCool claimed the cannabis in the carrier bag and claimed one of the small pieces was for his personal use.  He was simply transporting the cannabis from A to B and again without the knowledge of Heys.  Whilst the Crown viewed the facts as put forward by the accused with a high degree of suspicion, the Crown was prepared to accept those facts for the purpose of sentencing.  Heys was in breach of a Royal Court Order dated 29^th May, 1998, when he had been placed on Probation for 3 years with an Order that he complete 180 hours of Community Service within the first 12 months in respect of three counts of possession of a controlled drug and two counts of supplying a controlled drug being cannabis resin in respect of each count.  He had completed the Community Service Order.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Both accused had pleaded guilty and both claimed that neither had made any profit.  Both maintained that they did not know either of them were also carrying a commercial quantity of cannabis resin.  In respect of McCool he was still a young man being some 10 years younger than his co-accused and only had one previous drug conviction some 9 years ago for possession.  The SER report revealed that McCool had not had an ideal childhood, spending a large part of it in residential care.  However, he had now accepted responsibility and had a relationship from which there were three young children.  His arrest had put considerable stress on the family unit.  McCool had expressed genuine remorse for his involvement in the offence and became involved without thinking through the consequences.  Heys had become involved not out of greed but because of financial difficulties due to irregular work.  Unlike McCool, Heys pleaded guilty from the outset and it was denied that he had changed his version of events to fit the forensic evidence.  There had been a delay in sentencing because of the non-co-operation of the co-accused.  The SER report confirmed that Heys was still suffering the effects on his daily life having lost both a brother and sister who had committed suicide approximately two years previously.  Insofar as the breach of the Royal Court Order it was emphasised that he had completed the Community Service Order together with 17 months of the Probation Order.  References were provided in respect of both co-accused.

 

Conclusions: count 1:  21 months' imprisonment.

                        count 2:    1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

                        TOTAL: 21 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence:       Conclusions granted.

 

Philip HEYS:

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 3: cannabis resin.

 

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

                    count 4: cannabis resin.

 

 

Breach of a 3 year Probation Order, with 180 hours' Community Service, made by the Royal Court on 29^th May, 1998 (see Jersey Unreported Judgment of that date) on a guilty plea to 3 counts of possession of cannabis resin and 2 counts of supplying cannabis resin.

 

Plea:  Guilty; breach admitted.

 

Age:  37.

 

Details of Offence:   See McCool: details of offence, above.

 

Details of Mitigation:           See McCool: details of mitigation, above.

 

Conclusions: count 3:       21 months' imprisonment.

                        count 4:         1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

                        Breach of

                        Probation:      6 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

                        TOTAL:      27 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence:

 

count 3:           21 months' imprisonment.

count 4:             1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of

Probation:          3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

TOTAL:          24 months' imprisonment.

 

Observations of the Court:

 

The accused were caught transporting cannabis resin in two separate packages each transporting the cannabis from A to B separately.  Each packet contained approximately 1 kilo of cannabis resin.  The Crown has accepted that as the basis for sentencing and it is upon that basis that the Court is imposing sentence.  The Court reaffirmed that it would impose the appropriate sentence on anyone even in the rôle of a courier, such a person plays a vital link in drug trafficking.  The accused Heys might have expected a greater sentence as he had a previous conviction for supply, although admitted his guilt at an early stage for which he gets full credit.  The worse record of Heys is balanced by the available mitigation and therefore no distinction is drawn between the accused.  The Court had regard to the mitigation available being the pleas of guilty and considered the references provided.  Counsel for McCool had referred to three other cases but the Court repeated that a comparison of cases when the Sentencing Court did not have available the full facts before the earlier Court was not a helpful exercise.  The Court was satisfied that the conclusions moved by the Crown were in accordance with the guidelines of Campbell -v- AG.  Heys was clearly in breach of Probation and at the time of sentencing for the earlier offences the Court had noted that it was taking a chance.  The Court expressed regret that Heys had not taken advantage of that chance.  However, it felt that in the circumstances he was entitled to more credit than had been given by the Crown in respect of the breach of the Probation Order.  The sentence would be consecutive as someone who breached a Probation Order could not expect a concurrent sentence, except in exceptional circumstances.

 

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate C. Deacon for A.N. McCool;

Advocate R. Juste for P. Heys.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:  These two defendants were both caught in a car transporting a total of 2.15 kilos of cannabis resin which was contained in two separate packages, one of 1.01 kilos and one of 1.14 kilos.  Each defendant says that he was independently transporting one package; the Crown has accepted that and the Court is therefore imposing sentence on that basis.

 

Each has said that he was only transporting the drugs from one location to another on behalf of persons that he is not prepared to name.  However, the Court has repeatedly said that everyone who plays a part in the distribution process of controlled drugs, whether as courier, minder, or in some other rôle, forms a vital link in the distribution chain and can expect to be sentenced accordingly.

 

You, Heys, have a worse record for drug offences than McCool and you might therefore have expected to receive a greater sentence because you have a previous conviction for supply.  On the other hand you admitted your guilt at an early stage and the Court gives you full credit for that; in addition you were at all stages less unco-operative than your co-accused, McCool.  In the circumstances the Court feels that your worse record is balanced by the increased mitigation you have from these factors and they balance each other out.

 

McCool, the Court has taken into account all the mitigation which your counsel has relied upon, in particular your guilty plea, and we have also looked carefully at the references which were handed up on your behalf.

 

Mrs. Deacon has referred the Court to three other cases and we have to say, as the Court has said previously, that this is not always helpful.  The Court does not know the full facts of the other cases and it is not productive to compare detailed aspects of the facts of one case with the facts of another. 

 

We are satisfied that the conclusions moved by the Crown on this indictment are in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Campbell & Ors -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

In your case, Heys, you are also in breach of probation for offences of supply and possession of cannabis and at the time of imposing that sentence the Court said that it was taking a chance with you.  We have to say that it is a pity that you did not take advantage of that chance.  Nevertheless, you have completed the Community Service and we think that you are entitled to more credit for that than has been given by the Crown.

 

Accordingly, the sentences we impose are as follows.  In your case, McCool, on count 1, you are sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment; on count 2, you are sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 21 months' imprisonment.  In your case, Heys, on count 3, you are sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment; on count 4, you are sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.  For the breach of probation, on counts 2 and 4, which were the offences of supplying, 3 months' imprisonment; on counts 1, 3 and 5, which were the offences of possession, 1 month's imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent with each other, but the total of 3 months' imprisonment to be consecutive to that passed on today's indictment.  Therefore, in your case, this amounts to a total of 24 months' imprisonment, as we do not think that somebody who breaches probation can expect to receive a concurrent sentence, save in exceptional circumstances.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

AG -v- Heys (29^th May, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

Campbell & Ors. -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

AG -v- Turner (8^th December, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Shoesmith (19^th March, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Rossel (30^th April, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

Community Service Orders - tariff (1990) JLR N.19.