Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/73

4 pages

 

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

27^th April, 2000.

 

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

                                                      Jurats Myles, Le Ruez, Rumfitt, Potter,

                                                      Querée, Tibbo, Bullen, Le Breton,

                                                      Georgelin and Allo.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Darren William Bruton;

Joel Anthony McGrath.

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded in custody by the Inferior Number on 25^th February, 2000,  following guilty pleas to:

 

2 counts of       being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods contrary to Article 77(b) of

                        the Customs and Excise (General Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1972:

                        Count 1: MDMA;

                        Count 2: cannabis resin.

 

Darren William Bruton.

 

Age:   27.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Both defendants arrived on the first flight from Stanstead to Jersey.  Each carried a holdall in which 12 nine bars of cannabis resin weighing approximately 2.9 kilograms were secreted in brown taped packages.  Each defendant was also carrying approximately 5,000 ecstasy tablets wrapped in silver foil.  The value of the cannabis resin at street value was £17,280 and represented 864 deals of one-eighth of an ounce.  They both carried ecstasy: in McGrath's case 5,048 tablets worth £75,722 at street price and in Bruton's case 4,948 tablets worth approximately £74,220.  McGrath used an innocent female as a cover and was to have had a debt of £5,000 written off for making the run.  Both used the same prepared defence when the drugs were discovered in his baggage.  Bruton travelled under a false name supported with a false birth certificate.  Both said they were going to the Norfolk Hotel and both denied that the drugs belonged to them and must have been put in the luggage without their knowledge.  The ecstasy tablets all had Mitsubishi motifs.  All the drugs were wrapped in virtually identical packages.  The fact that there were two couriers was significant given that one man could easily have carried the whole consignment.  The organiser was hedging his bets should one courier have been intercepted.  The facts showed a good degree of forward planning which constituted a smuggling attempt that was other than amateurish.  The importations were done purely for financial gain.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Reference handed up on behalf of McGrath.  Started to use drugs at 22, including ecstasy and cocaine.  In debt to supplier.  Currently being treated for tuberculosis, contracted in London.  In fear of supplier.  Bruton's activities exacerbated by false ID.  Bad criminal record.  On licence from UK following release having served 5½ years for armed robbery.  Reference handed up.  Alleged fear of drug threats.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Robbery, possession of a firearm, attempted robbery, drunk and disorderly, burglary, breach of the peace, assault causing actual bodily harm, motoring offences.

 

 

 

Conclusions:                     .

                     

Count 1:   11 years' imprisonment.

Count 2:   3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 1:   starting point: 14 years, less 2 years for guilty plea, less further year for what little mitigation available.

Count 2:   starting point: 4 years, less 1 year for mitigation.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

Conclusions granted;

Count 1:   Court lowered starting point to 13 years, less 2 years for mitigation.

 

Joel Anthony McGrath.

 

Age:   27.

 

Details of Offence:   See Bruton (supra).

 

Details of Mitigation:                                               See Bruton (supra).

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Theft, going equipped for theft, obtaining by deception, DIC and (minor) possession of controlled drugs (fine of £30).

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:   5 years' imprisonment.

Count 2:   3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 1:   14 years' starting point, less 2 years for guilty plea, less further 3 years for lack of significant record and co-operation - 9 years.

                Substantial further discount for continued co-operation including naming a supplier.

Count 2:   starting point  4 years, less 1 year for mitigation.

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:

 

Conclusions granted;

Count 1:   Court lowered starting point to 13 years, less 4 years for mitigation; less further 4 years for naming supplier.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate;

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for D.W. Bruton;

Advocate  Mrs. S.A. Pearmain for J.A. McGrath.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

 

1.        Both of these defendants carried out similar importations.  They brought ecstasy and cannabis resin into the Island in holdalls and were stopped at Jersey Airport.

 

2.        Bruton had 4,948 tablets of ecstasy with a street value of some £74,220,  He also had 2.92 kilograms of cannabis resin with a street value of some £17,280.

 

3.        McGrath had 5,048 tablets of ecstasy with a street value of some £75,720, and 2.95 kilograms of cannabis resin, with a street value of £17,280.

 

4.        As we are now invited to do by the Crown, we treat these as two separate importations.  It has been accepted that there may have been the same original supplier in England, but these two individuals brought in their respective amounts separately without knowledge of the other. We will therefore be sentencing Bruton for the importation of the amount that I have ascribed to him above, and McGrath for the amount which he brought in.  But even regarded separately these were two very large importations,  and the Court has made it clear that importers of large quantities of class "A" controlled drugs can expect to receive condign punishment, as was said in the leading authority of Campbell, MacKenzie and Molloy-v-A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

5.        We have given careful consideration to the starting point in this case, and we have had regard to the cases to which we have been referred.  On balance we think that for the individual importations the right starting point is 13 years.  We consider then each of the defendants in turn.

 

6.        Bruton has pleaded guilty.  He has no previous drug convictions; however he has a poor character, having served a considerable sentence for armed robbery.  He was uncooperative when interviewed, and gave a false I.D, although he has pleaded guilty in the end.  We have had regard to the letters which have been handed up.  It has also been said that he was the subject of threats because of drug debts.  This Court has said on other occasions that threats made as a result of previous purchases of drugs are no mitigation.  If a person puts himself in a position of owing money to a drug dealer it is to be expected that he will be threatened, and he cannot thereafter use that as mitigation; he has put himself in that position.   Taking all the mitigation into account, we consider that the appropriate deduction is in fact 2 years rather than the 3 years which the Crown had suggested, and we therefore in Bruton's case impose a sentence of 11 years on count 1.  In relation to count 2 we adopt the conclusions of the Crown of three years imprisonment concurrent, making a total of 11 years.

 

7.   McGrath has pleaded guilty.  He was, after an initial denial at the Airport, immediately co-operative in that, when interviewed at Customs Headquarters, he admitted his part and, unlike Bruton, his record is a very minor one, although there is one previous conviction for possession of class "B" drugs - but that was many years ago.  His record is of a different order to that of Bruton.  We have also had regard to the letters and references and, all in all, we think that - subject to the matter I am about to refer to - an appropriate deduction from the starting point in his case is 4 years.   However, he has gone a stage further, as the Crown Advocate has stated, for he has named a supplier of controlled drugs.  This Court has said on numerous occasions that where a person is willing to give assistance, and for that assistance to be publicly known, the Court will give a very substantial discount.  In this case we think that a further 4 years should be given on account of that.  The result is that McGrath will be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment on count 1, and 3 years imprisonment concurrent, on count 2.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.                            

 

 

 

 

 

Authorities.

 

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

 

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

 

A.G.-v-Jones and Rayner (6^th June, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

 

Campbell, Mackenzie and Molloy-v-A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

A.G -v- Chadwick (30^th October, 1955) Jersey Unreported.

 

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

 

A.G -v- Melville ( 20^th September, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

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

 

A.G -v- Shoestring  (19^th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G -v- McCrum (14^th March, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

Current Sentencing Practice ( Sweet & Maxwell, 1999):  C2-2F.

 

Collins & Fox -v- Chief Constable of Merseyside (1988) Crim.LR. 247 DC.

 

R -v- Hoar & Hoar (1982) Crim. L.R. 606.