Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/130

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12^th July 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Lynton John Skeete

 

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:
1 count of:	Cannabis resin

 

 

Age:     27

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

Skeete was questioned by customs officers having disembarked from the Condor ferry in a motor vehicle accompanied by his girlfriend and their two children.  He initially denied having any prohibited drugs.  On being told that the officer wished to carry out a search of his person, Skeete admitted that he had half a kilo of cannabis hidden in his underclothes.  He produced two "9 bars" of cannabis resin containing a total of 483.83 grams of the drug with a total street value in the Island of £2,727.

 

Details of Mitigation:

In mitigation Skeete claimed that he came to the Island intending to look for work and that the cannabis was for his personal use.   Whilst he did have a prior conviction for possession of cannabis, for which the Liverpool magistrates had given him a conditional discharge, his record was not bad and this was his first taste of imprisonment having been remanded in custody since the time of his arrest.  It was said to have a salutary effect.  Letters were produced from his girlfriend and family members, commenting in particular on the effect of his absence on the children.  He expressed remorse.  He pleaded guilty, although had little choice in the circumstances.  Defence counsel urged that community service was appropriate.

 

Conclusions:

1 year's imprisonment.  (2 years starting point)

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

4 months' imprisonment.

 

The Court declined to speculate with regard to whether the accused intended the drugs for himself or for commercial purposes.  He was not charged with possession with intent to supply but with the importation of the drugs.  The gravamen of importation is that the accused is a hostage to fortune and there is no way of telling what might have become of the drugs.  All that is clear is that the cannabis added to the stock of drugs in the Island.  The court noted the mitigation, in particular the fact that this was a tragedy for the family, but felt there was no alternative to a custodial sentence.  This case fell below the usual guidelines as defined in Campbell.  The Court reduced the starting point for sentence to one of 15 months' imprisonment.  Observing that there was "much mitigation" the Court imposed a sentence of four months' imprisonment and made an order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

A.D. Robinson Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A.J.D. Winchester for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        We do not need to summarise the facts in any great detail.  On Friday, 3^rd May, 2002, Skeete and his girlfriend with their two young children, arrived on the Condor Ferry from Poole in a motor car.  After some initial denials Skeete admitted that he was carrying cannabis and he eventually produced from his underwear two blocks of cannabis.  That was two 9 bars containing 483.83 grams of cannabis resin with a street value of £2,727.00 and a wholesale value of £1,900.  Of course, the value of the cannabis merely shows that it was, in the opinion of the drug squad officers, a commercial quantity of the drug.

2.        Skeete maintains that he had no intention of selling the drug.  The Crown because of the quantity of the drug and the various anomalies in his story does not accept that.  We had no evidence other than conjecture to prove or disprove the truth of Skeete's assertion, and we do not intend to comment on conjecture.

3.        Advocate Winchester in his careful address has shown that there is no evidence of financial hardship to lead us to the inevitable conclusion that Skeete had to sell the drugs in order to fund his habit. 

4.        Advocate Winchester declined any suggestion that this case called for a Newton hearing.  That must be right.  We have, as we have, said a dispute.  The Crown does not accept that the cannabis was for personal use. However, we do not need to be drawn into that argument.

5.        Skeete is charged with the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug.  In the leading case of Conquer -v- AG (4^th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2002/73] the Court of Appeal said, at paragraph 8:

"We have some doubts, despite what appears to be the ratio in Gregory-v-AG (15^th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported CofA, as to the appropriateness of the Court when sentencing for importation holding investigations with a view to deciding whether a particular importer is going to hoard his importation for his own future use, share it with a few friends or stand on the corner of King Street selling it in small quantities to all comers."

Later the Court of Appeal stated:

 

"The offence under Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999, is one of simple importation.  The gravity of the offence depends on the quantity and value of the drugs which are imported and the class to which they relate.  The larger the quantity that is imported the less likely that it will be that the Court can infer that the drugs will be used by the importer alone."

The Court went on to say this:

 

"When one analyses that paragraph one sees that as soon as the consignment grows to any substantial size i.e. "beyond a relatively small amount" the suggestion that there is an intent to put the drugs to commercial use becomes more compelling.  The real evidence which is going to weigh with the Court is the quantity of the drugs and not what the importer says about his intentions which, anyway, might change if the circumstances of the importer change."

6.        Those last few words of the Court of Appeal in our view go to the gravamen of the charge before us.  By bringing in this amount of illegal drugs, described as a commercial quantity, Skeete has made himself a hostage to fortune.  Who knows what might have happened to this quantity of drugs.  They may have been lost, they may have been stolen, or they may have been sold.  In any event, if any of those cases applied they would add to the stock pile of the illegal substances in this Island.

7.        This is a tragic case for the family.  We have carefully read the many letters which have been sent to us.  It is having an emotional effect on the children.  Sadly, on the 3^rd June a letter was received at Skeete's home address, the writer clearly unaware of what had happened to him, offering him a job as an assistant auction manager, following an interview that he had had.

8.        This amount of cannabis falls below the usual guide lines in Campbell & Ors -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA, which go to a starting point, for 1-10 kilograms with an approximate street value of £5,300 to £5,600, of 2 to 6 years.  We may say that this is not a mathematical exercise calculated on a straight line basis.  But in our view this offence calls for a custodial sentence.  We do not view the importation of drugs as anything other than serious, but in the absence of any guidance from the Court of Appeal, we feel that for this offence in these circumstances there is a call for a starting point of 15 months. 

9.        There is much mitigation including, of course, the guilty plea which is of most value, and we are going to reduce the sentence from the starting point to 4 months' in custody and we order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

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

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Edition): pp 15-19,48-49, 90-91.

Gregory-v-AG (1997) JLR 1 CofA.

Conquer v AG (4^th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2002/73].