Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/178

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

7^th August,  2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

John Henry Bonnar

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 30^th March, 2001, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

2 counts 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. Count 2: M.D.M.A.

 

Age:     30.       

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Defendant was "given" a motor vehicle valued at £2,500 and told if he took the drugs to Jersey, the car would be his.  In the spare tyre of the vehicle was hidden 24 bars of cannabis weighing 5.94 kilos and 3,761 ecstasy tablets plus broken pieces equivalent to 138 tablets.  Street value of cannabis was £34,560, street value of ecstasy was £46,692.  Defendant drove the car from Scotland down to Poole where he took the ferry to Jersey with his 16 year old girlfriend.  Upon his arrival the car was searched, the drugs were found and he was arrested.  After initial denials, he admitted knowing that he was importing drugs to Jersey but claimed he did not know the type.  He had driven the vehicle with a false insurance cover note.  He claimed the vehicle had been removed from his possession the day before the journey for approximately 2 hours and returned to him with drugs inside the spare tyre.  The drugs were to be collected in Jersey and the car would be returned to him. 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Prompt guilty plea.  Remorse.  Claimed less involvement than Fogg and should be a ten year starting point, albeit the Defendant imported more than three times the amount of drugs in Fogg's case.  Psychiatric report focused on the after effects of Defendant's service in the Army and he was suffering from the residual effects of Gulf War Syndrome.  Defendant had two children and 3 step-children and girlfriend expecting a baby in September.  Defendant said he feared for family safety if he did not comply with request to carry out the importation.

 

Previous Convictions:

Four previous convictions totalling seven offences, three of which concerned possession of drugs, but this is the first trafficking offence. 

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.  (starting point 5 years)
Count 2:	9 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  (starting point: 12 years)

 

Drugs and vehicle to be forfeited.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	8 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Court felt that starting point was correct but that the Defendant should have some credit for the service he had given to his country during the Gulf War and the appropriate discount would be four years, giving eight years' imprisonment in total. 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M.L. Preston for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This accused has pleaded guilty to the importation of cannabis with a street value of over £34,000 and 3,900 ecstasy tablets with a street value of some £46,000.  He brought the drugs to Jersey concealed in the spare tyre of the vehicle which he was driving.  His explanation was that he owed £2,500 to a drug dealer, following the provision to him of a car for his own purposes and that this debt would be forgiven as a result of the importation of the drugs.  This is, therefore, drug trafficking on a substantial commercial scale.

2.        The Crown Advocate has taken a starting point of five years' imprisonment in respect of the importation of the cannabis and twelve years' in respect of the importation of the ecstasy.  Defence counsel submitted that, by comparison with the defendant in the case of AG-v-Fogg (1990) JLR 206, the starting point in the case of the ecstasy should be ten years', in particular, because the accused was lower down the tree of involvement in drug trafficking than Fogg and was unaware of the amount of drugs that he was transporting in the tyre. 

3.        The problem with that last argument is that the only objective evidence of the degree of a person's involvement in drug trafficking is usually the amount of drugs found in his possession.  Here, the supplier was prepared to entrust the accused with over £80,000 worth of drugs to transport to Jersey.  We think that the starting point of twelve years' adopted by the Crown Advocate is correct. 

4.        Defence counsel then submitted that the full one third discount should be allowed for the mitigating circumstances.  The accused had made immediate admissions and had saved the prosecution from a long and possibly difficult trial, notwithstanding that he was found in possession of the drugs in flagrante delicto. We think that there is some force in that argument, to which we would add that some consideration is due for the service that Bonnar gave to his country during the Gulf War.  Taken in the round, we think that the appropriate discount for the mitigating circumstances is, indeed, one third. 

5.        Bonnar, you are accordingly sentenced on Count 1 to 4 years' imprisonment, on Count 2 to eight years' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of eight years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and we also order the forfeiture of the Renault Laguna vehicle.

 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Jones (6^th June 1996) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Bruton & McGrath (27^th April 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/73].

AG-v-Bray (8^th November 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/198].

Rimmer & Ors-v-AG (19^th July 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA.

AG-v-Fogg (1990) JLR 206.

Fogg-v-AG (1991) JLR 31 CofA.

Bruton-v-AG (14^th July 2000) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2000/136].