Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/85

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

                                                                 12^th April, 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Ronald Anthony Rimmer;

Paul Francis Holding

 

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 9th March, 2001, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

 

RONALD ANTHONY RIMMER.

 

1 count of:	being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999: Count 1: cocaine.
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 2: cocaine.

 

[count 2 was withdrawn by the Crown.]

 

Age:     42.       

 

Details of Offence:

Both accused were intercepted by Customs Officers when they arrived in Jersey aboard the Condor Express from Weymouth.  Holding had concealed internally balloons which contained 102.42 grams of heroin with a street value of between £30,726 and £46,089 (wholesale value between £15,363 and £20,484).  Heroin purity was between 75% and 79% by weight diamorphine, well above the police national average figure of 47%.  Significant amount of heroin, sufficient to make 922 score bags.  Rimmer had concealed internally balloons containing 156.97 grams of cocaine with a street value of £12,557 (wholesale value between £4,993 and £10,044).  Purity was 66% to 75% above the police national average figure.  A significant amount of cocaine, enough to make approximately 157 wraps.  Holding stated that he had borrowed £2,000 from a loan shark in Liverpool to cover his gambling debts and had been unable to pay the money back.  He and his family had been threatened.  The money lender then said that the debt would be cancelled if he took some packages over to Jersey.  Holding believed that he was importing heroin.  Rimmer undertook to transport the drugs (which he believed to be amphetamine sulphate) in order to reduce the debt of £2,000 and to receive an additional payment of £1,000.  Each accused knew the other was carrying drugs.  Drugs were delivered to Rimmer's address in Liverpool and repackaged there for internal insertion.  Both men then travelled down to Weymouth in a car either owned or hired by Rimmer.  The drugs had been supplied from a single source in Liverpool and were likely to be going to the same dealer in Jersey.  Holding was the younger brother of Rimmer's girlfriend.     

 

Details of Mitigation:

Rimmer's plea of guilty (although inevitable).  He had co-operated with Customs and Excise Officers during the question and answer interview in a similar manner to Holding.  There could be no further mitigation for character or youth, and indeed Rimmer had a previous conviction before a Spanish Court in 1996 for trafficking 50 kg. of cannabis in Spain for which he received a sentence of 4 years' and 9 months' imprisonment.

 

Previous Convictions:

The defendant had numerous convictions for dishonesty including a serious drug trafficking offence in 1996 in Spain.

 

Conclusions:

The Crown took the view that Rimmer was more involved than Holding in relation to the importation, being the older man and due to the fact that the repacking of the drugs took place at his address in Liverpool.  As the two accused were not jointly indicted, the Crown took differing starting points based, inter alia, on the value of the drugs concealed internally and their relative involvement in drug trafficking (rather than a common starting point based on a joint venture).

 

Count 1:

8 years' imprisonment.

 

The Crown took as a starting point 9 years' imprisonment less 1 year for all the available mitigation.  Order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court views the culpability and involvement of both men being on a par and it was a matter of chance that Holding happened to have drugs with a higher street value concealed in his person.  The Court adopts a starting point of 10 years' for both accused.  After mitigation Holding was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment and Rimmer to 8 years' imprisonment.

 

PAUL FRANCIS HOLDING.

(on a separate indictment)

 

1 count of:	being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law(Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 1: heroin.
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 2: heroin.

 

[count 2 was withdrawn by the Crown.]

 

Age:     23.       

 

Details of Offence:

See Rimmer above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The plea of guilty (although inevitable).  Holding made admissions immediately after caution that he had heroin concealed internally (before drugs were discovered).  The defendant had co-operated with Customs and Excise Officers by detailing his movements from Liverpool to Jersey and had implicated Rimmer.  However, he did not name suppliers or give details of the person to whom the drugs were to be supplied.  There were no previous convictions; his residual youth; his positive good character.  

 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

 

Conclusions:

The Crown took the view that Rimmer was more involved than Holding in relation to the importation, being the older man and due to the fact that the repacking of the drugs took place at his address in Liverpool.  As the two accused were not jointly indicted, the Crown took differing starting points based, inter alia, on the value of the drugs concealed internally and their relative involvement in drug trafficking (rather than a common starting point based on a joint venture).

 

The Crown took as a starting point 11 years' and after allowing for all available mitigation, moved for a sentence of 7 years.

 

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court views the culpability and involvement of both men being on a par and it was a matter of chance that Holding happened to have drugs with a higher street value concealed in his person.  The Court adopts a starting point of 10 years' for both accused.  After mitigation Holding was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment and Rimmer to 8 years' imprisonment.

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R.J.F. Pirie for R.A. Rimmer;

Advocate Mrs. S. A. Pearmain for P.F. Holding.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.     These two accused imported into the Island a substantial quantity of Class A drugs as a commercial venture.  They were prepared to make money by trading in the misery of heroin addicts and spreading drug abuse in the Island.

2.     We think that in the particular circumstances of this case, both defendants were equally involved in the importation of these Class A drugs and that there is no significance in the fact that Holding was carrying the heroin and Rimmer the cocaine.

3.     The supplier was the same; they travelled together; no doubt the destination of both sets of drugs was the same; they are brothers-in-law.  We take the view that this was a joint venture.

4.     Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we think that the appropriate starting point in the case of both defendants is one of 10 years' imprisonment.

5.     Stand up, please.  Rimmer, you have a bad record, including one recent conviction for trafficking in Spain.  You knew without any doubt the consequences of your actions.  We think that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate are absolutely right and you are accordingly sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

6.     Holding, we are going to temper justice with mercy in your case, having regard to your youth; to your previous good record; and to the things which we have read about you in the references supplied by your counsel.  We are going to apply the same deductions as moved for by the Crown Advocate in respect of those mitigating factors and you are accordingly sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

Authorities

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