Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/155

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

24^th July 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Ian Arthur Clarke

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 8^th June, 2001, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

1 count of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 : Count 1: cannabis resin.

 

 

Age:     40

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

120 bars of cannabis resin was hidden in the defendant's newly purchased car.  Cannabis weighed 29.135 kilos with a street value of £172,000.  SER said that the defendant had been given the money to buy the vehicle and a ticket to Jersey.  The defendant drove to Weymouth and arrived in Jersey off the ferry with a 24 hour return ticket.  He was stopped and searched.  The drugs were found hidden in the vehicle and it took cutting gear to retrieve them.  He made "no comment" responses at interview and denied knowing that the drugs were in his car.  He gave names of two building firms for whom he had been asked to work in Jersey, together with the name of a contact.  The story proved to be untrue.  Fingerprints and DNA lifted from the drugs and packaging did not link the defendant.  It was, however, unbelievable that the defendant was unaware of the drugs in the vehicle because they could not have been retrieved within 24 hours without specialist cutting equipment.  

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Offered explanation of his level of involvement at mitigation: he was a courier not involved in organising, packaging and hiding the drugs.  Defendant's son "sectioned" under Mental Health Act re schizophrenia following son's attack on defendant's wife, breaking her wrist.  Daughter a heroin addict.  Defendant had taken 3 months off work to supervise her rehabilitation and had got into financial difficulties.  Very sad personal circumstances.  Did the run for £5,000 cash and the car. 

 

Previous Convictions:

Relatively minor convictions unrelated to drugs between 1981 and 1987.

 

Conclusions:

Starting point of 10 years: 7 years' imprisonment,

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Forfeiture of vehicle under Article 56 Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

10 year starting point correct.  Having heard mitigation, Court said 4 years "discount" appropriate:

6 years' imprisonment, forfeiture of drugs and forfeiture of vehicle.

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant imported 29 kilos of cannabis resin with a street value of some £172,000 into Jersey hidden in a car.  Concealing the drugs had involved the cutting and welding of the car and was clearly quite sophisticated, but we accept that that was undertaken by those who had organised the drug run and not the defendant. 

2.        The first matter that we must consider is the starting point.  We have been referred to the well known case of Campbell and Molloy, which states that for amounts of 10 to 30 kilos the starting point should be between 6 and 10 years.  We have also been referred by Miss. Juste to a passage from the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Rimmer, which emphasised that the Court did have to take into account the part played by the defendant.  That, in fact, has been the policy of the Court, in accordance with Campbell and Molloy, which made it clear that one had to take into account the nature of the activities.  But, this Court has repeatedly said that the part played by couriers is a vital part of the long chain which leads to drugs being sold in the island.  For 29 kilos, we see no reason to depart from the Crown's starting point of 10 years.   

3.        We turn, therefore, to consider mitigation.  The first point relied upon by Miss. Juste is the guilty plea.  The defendant did not immediately admit his guilt, and indeed, he pleaded not guilty when he first came before the Magistrate's Court.  He cannot, therefore, expect the same level of credit as he would have received had he admitted his guilt from the outset.  Nevertheless, it is a plea of guilty with value and we agree with the Crown that it is not the same as a case where the drugs are concealed internally. 

4.        Secondly, Miss. Juste has referred to the defendant's good character.  Although he has one or two minor convictions, they were all a long time ago and we are willing to treat him, effectively, as a person of good character and that stands him in good stead.

5.        Thirdly, she relies upon the circumstances giving rise to this offence.  The defendant's daughter is a heroin addict.  During the course of the latter part of last year, he took 3 months off from work, in order to try to and ensure that she underwent detoxification treatment.  Eventually, for financial reasons, he had to go back to work and shortly afterwards she regressed, so that she remains a heroin addict.  There were then further financial problems caused by difficulties at work and other matters and by the early part of this year the defendant was clearly under great stress and we have medical evidence to support the fact that he suffered a panic attack at work one day.  As Miss Juste put it, it was at this time of a low ebb and financial problems that he was offered £5,000 and a new car, in order to undertake this drug run.

6.        The Court cannot help but note the irony of the situation, that here we have a defendant who has a daughter who is a heroin addict; yet he is prepared to undertake a drug run to aid the supply of illegal drugs to teenagers in Jersey.  He purported to distinguish it by saying that cannabis was of a totally different nature to heroin, but we are not impressed with that distinction.  Nevertheless, we accept the offence was carried out by way of desperation, rather than for greed.

7.        In all the circumstances, taking into account all the mitigation which we have described, we think that a proper allowance from a starting point of 10 years is one of 4 years.  The sentence of the Court is one of 6 years' imprisonment; we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and we also order the forfeiture of the car.        

 

Authorities

Campbell and Ors. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

AG-v-Vallois (3^rd May 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/95]

AG-v-McMahon (27^th April 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/74]

AG-v-Travis and Ors. (8^th May 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/80]

Ag-v-Bain (2^nd December 1996) Jersey Unreported