Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/74

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-

 

Anthony McMahon.

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded in custody by the Inferior Number on 10^th March, 2000, following guilty pleas to:

 

1 count 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: cannabis resin.

 

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

                        Count 2: cannabis resin.

 

 

Age:  38.

 

Details of Offence:  

 

Accused arrived in Jersey on car ferry.   Hire car which he was driving was found to contain 23 kilograms of cannabis (street value approx £134,000.)

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Accused sentenced on his account of having acted at the behest of a loan shark to whom he was in debt.  That person threatened him/his family over the unpaid debt and had promised to cancel it if the accused drove the hire car to Jersey, to be unloaded by a Jersey contact, a person unknown to the accused.  The accused was a family man of good character;  the children were young and greatly affected by being apart from him.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Minor:  mostly motoring; disregard.

 

Conclusions:                     Count 1:                         6 years' imprisonment.

                      Count 2:         6 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

                      Starting point:                                      8 years' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence & Observations of Court: Conclusions granted.    Threats arising from a drugs involvement provide no mitigation at all.  Threats arising from other circumstances may provide some - albeit minimal - mitigation.

 

 

C.E. Whelan, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the accused.

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.      This defendant has pleaded guilty to importing some 23.23 kg of cannabis resin into the Island on 24^th November of last year.  That cannabis resin had a street value of approximately £133,000.

 

2.      The defendant states that he owed £3,000 to a 'loan shark' in Liverpool.  He could not repay it and was threatened with a beating.  He was told he could clear his debt by driving a car to Jersey.  He left the car at a public house in Liverpool one night and picked it up the following evening.  On arrival in Jersey he was to leave it in a hotel car park where it would be picked up by someone else.  He knew he was bringing something illegal to Jersey but says he did not know that it was controlled drugs.

 

3.      The car was stopped on reaching Jersey by customs officers at Elizabeth Terminal.  The cannabis resin was hidden in various places about the car: inside the panel in the boot; the battery compartment; the handbrake housing; inside the rear seat; and within the rear bumper.

 

4.      The Court has repeatedly stated that those who become involved in the distribution of controlled drugs can expect to receive heavy sentences.  In Campbell, MacKenzie and Molloy (1995) JLR 136 CofA, the Court said this at p.144:

 

"Much will depend upon the amount and value of the drugs involved, the nature and scale of the activity and, of course, any other factors showing the degree to which the defendant was concerned in drug trafficking."

 

5.      The Court went on to say that in the case of cannabis resin, where the amount involved was between 10-30 kg, the appropriate starting point would vary from 6-10 years.  The Crown in this case has taken a starting point of 8 years.  The defence have not sought to object to that and we agree that it is the correct starting point.

 

6.      We therefore turn to the mitigation.  The first is the plea of guilty; although the drugs were found in the car which was in the possession of the defendant nevertheless he is entitled to some credit for his guilty plea.  He made immediate admissions to the customs officers.  He is also entitled to credit for his good character, although he has some minor previous convictions.  We have also seen eight references which we have carefully considered.

 

7.      Advocate Tremoceiro has also raised the question of the threats.  We wish to make it clear that threats arising out of the use of drugs go in no way whatsoever towards mitigation.  Those who move in the drugs world can expect to be threatened and it will therefore not avail them if they then commit offences because of those threats.  In this case it is said that the threats were made by a 'loan shark' who had lent money to the defendant, but not for the purpose of purchasing drugs.  Clearly, however, the 'loan shark' turned out to be involved in the drugs scene because he then arranged for the defendant to undertake this run.  The fact is that the defendant placed himself in this position by undertaking such a transaction.  Some minimal mitigation is available in those circumstances, but it is not considerable.

 

8.      We have also considered carefully the other mitigation available in the papers before the Court but having taken it in the round we have concluded that the conclusions of the Crown are right.  Stand up, please, Mr. McMahon.  We impose a sentence of six years' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

 

Authorities

 

 

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

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp.30-5; 46-7.

Ibid: Noter Up (May, 1995-6): pp.6; 11.

Ibid: Noter Up (May, 1996-7): pp.5; 7.

A.G. -v- Stead (21^st June, 1993) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Bate (23^rd November, 1993) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Chadwick (30^th October, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

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

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

A.G. -v- Evans, Evans, Snooks (16^th June, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Dicker, Driscoll, Wakeham (23^rd October, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Hartley (20^th June, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

Campbell, MacKenzie, and Molloy (1995) JLR 136 CofA.