Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/172

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2^nd August 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Nicholas Bernard Noon;

Patricia Mary Noon

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court to which the Defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 15^th June 2001, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

 

NICHOLAS BERNARD NOON

 

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 & Excise (Jersey) Law 1999; Count 1: MDMA

 

Age:     22

 

Details of Offence:

Mrs Noon was arrested on arrival at the harbour in Jersey and found to have concealed in her panty girdle and under her armpit 2,258 ecstasy (MDMA) tablets.  Local street value of between £27,096 and £33,870 (wholesale value of between £13,548 and £22,580).  Mrs Noon had been encouraged to import the drugs at the instigation of her son who had received threats as a result of owing a £3,000 drug debt.  Mr Noon accompanied his mother to Jersey and his involvement was one of the general organiser and overseer of the trip and was to collect the drugs from his mother and then hand them over to a local dealer (unknown to him), who would approach him at a public house.  Mrs Noon was a mere courier who stupidly conceded to the request of her son out of misplaced loyalty and desire to receive £500 for the importation of the drugs.  Mrs Noon believed that the drugs were "purple hearts".  Mr Noon knew that these drugs were ecstasy and had counted each of the tablets and repacked the same after a dealer in Liverpool had handed them to him.      

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea - a valuable plea since he was not found in possession of the tablets.  On the other hand, during question and answer interview Mr Noon admitted that he had counted the drugs and placed them in cling film, before handing them to his mother.  It was highly likely that his finger prints would have been found on the packaging and that forensic tests would have established that a roll of cling film found in his holdall matched the cling film used to package the drugs.  He cooperated during question and answer interview and made admissions at the earliest possible opportunity.  Youth (22 years of age).

 

Previous Convictions:

19.09.96: interfering with a vehicle (Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s.9) and being found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose (Vagrancy Act 1824 s.4) and fined by Liverpool Magistrate's Court.

29.09.97: wounding with intent (Criminal Code s.33) 12 months' imprisonment imposed by Court of general gaol delivery.

24.03.98: possessing controlled drug (Misuse of Drugs Act 1976 s.5(2)) Deputy High Bailiff (Scotland?).

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

8 years' imprisonment.  (starting point 12 years and allowing for mitigation.)

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.  (starting point 11 years and allowing for mitigation.)

 

PATRICIA MARY NOON

 

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 & Excise (Jersey) Law 1999; Count 1: MDMA

 

Age:     52

 

Details of Offence:

See Mr. Noon.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Plea of guilty (but caught in flagrante delicto) and cooperated during interview (but lied in order to protect her son).  Character given additional weight by prosecution because she had reached the age of 52 having led a blameless life.  No age related mitigation available as she was not an offender in her sixties or older.  Acted out of misplaced sense of loyalty to her son, possibly as a result of emotional blackmail having been applied to her.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

6 years' imprisonment.  (9 years starting point and allowing for all mitigation.)

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.  (9 years starting point and allowing for all mitigation.)

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for N.B. Noon

Advocate L. Kerruish P.M. Noon

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Crown Advocate has asked us to adopt a table of starting points in relation to drug trafficking where the drug concerned is ecstasy.  A similar request was made by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal in the case of Rimmer and Ors-v-AG and Southwell, JA, stated, in relation to that request, as follows:

"The Attorney General asked that similar guidance be given, in line with the Campbell guidelines, in respect of Class A drugs carried and sold in tablet form, including Ecstasy, LSD and Amphetamines.  This Court is not in a position on this appeal to respond to this request.  This Court does not have before it evidence of the degree of social and medical harm resulting from abuse of such drugs, evidence of any comparison of relative potency of such drugs as between themselves or as compared with e.g. heroin or cocaine, or evidence which would enable the Court to formulate bands of starting-points on lines similar to those set out above.  Further, this Court has not been supplied with some of the relevant legal authorities, including the guideline cases in England and Wales, and the Court does not have detailed submissions from the Appellants' Counsel in this regard (rightly, because the appeals involve only heroin and cocaine).  Further assistance from the Court will have to await suitable appeals in cases involving drugs such as Ecstasy."

2.        The Court is sympathetic to the submission made by the Crown Advocate that guidelines should be given in tabular form as to the starting point which is appropriate in relation to drugs of this kind.  We find ourselves, however, in exactly the same position as the Court of Appeal and for the same reasons as were set out clearly by Southwell, JA, we decline, on this occasion, to endorse the table put before us by the Crown Advocate.  We hope that on a future occasion further and more detailed submissions will be advanced in support of any similar request. 

3.        We turn, therefore, to the sentencing of these two accused.  Noon, we take the view, like the Crown Advocate, that you were the prime mover behind this importation.  You are the cause of your mother's predicament and involvement in the commission of a serious criminal offence.  Whether or not you applied emotional blackmail to her, we do not know, but what is certain is that without you she would not be here.  You caused to be imported 2,258 tablets of ecstasy, a considerable amount of a class A drug.  We think, having regard to the previous cases which have been placed before us, that the appropriate starting point is, however, one of eleven years' imprisonment.  You are entitled to the usual discount for your guilty plea, which as your counsel has rightly said, was of particular value in this case.  We apply the same deductions as the Crown Advocate and you are, accordingly, sentenced on the single count before the Court to a term of imprisonment for seven years.

4.        Mrs. Noon, the Court is sad that a woman of your previous good character should, for whatever reason, whether tempted by the prospect of gaining £500, or out of misplaced feelings of loyalty for your son, have agreed to commit a serious offence of this kind.  Ordinarily, we think that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate would have been absolutely right.  We have taken into account the many references which have been placed before us and the many good things which have been said about you.  We have also taken into account our feeling that you were manipulated into the commission of this offence.  You acted extremely stupidly, but the Court is going to be merciful and to reduce, slightly, the conclusions of the Crown Advocate.  We adopt a starting point of nine years', which we think is right, but making allowance for all the mitigation we have heard, the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for a term of five years'.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

Authorities

Rimmer & Ors-v-AG (19^th July 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/148].

Thomas: Principles of Sentencing: para C2-2CA.

Francis (1993) 14 Cr.App.R. 562.

Harold Nicholas S. [1998] Cr.App.R. 261.

Anderson [1999] 1 Cr.App.R. 273.