Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/189

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th October 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

William John Scobie

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 23^rd August, 2002, following a change of plea to guilty to:

Age:     44.

Details of Offence:

Scobie together with another man, Bain was involved in a conspiracy in 1995 to import 16.1 kilograms of cannabis resin into Jersey.  (See A.G.-v- Bain (2^nd December,1996) Jersey Unreported; [1996/ 227].)  The value of the cannabis in 1995 was £92,787 and there had been no increase in the street value of cannabis between then and 2002.  The cannabis had been concealed in a wooden box secreted in a settee ordered from a shop in Glasgow for delivery to a Mr Hudson whose address was given as Bain's address in Jersey.  The settee had been purchased by Scobie.  The settee was duly delivered to Bain's address where the wooden box was removed from the settee and the cannabis hidden in Bain's bathroom.  It was found there on a Police search the same evening.  Scobie left the Island prior to his arrest and whilst an arrest warrant was obtained Scobie remained at liberty until he handed himself in voluntarily to the Police in December, 2001.  Scobie initially entered reserved pleas before the Magistrate's Court and then not guilty pleas on indictment.  On his application two weeks prior to trial he was permitted to change his pleas to guilty.  The Crown took as its starting point 8 years.  This was the same starting point as taken in the case of Bain.  The Crown justified it in the case of Scobie not only in terms of the value and quantity of the drugs involved but also the level of involvement of Scobie in what was considered to be a joint and complex enterprise between Scobie and Bain.  In the Crown's view the essential issue to be considered was the value to be placed upon the guilty plea.  The evidence against Scobie was strong including forensic evidence linking him to the counts.  Whilst he was entitled to be rewarded for his guilty pleas as it did avoid a trial, in all of the circumstances a full one third reduction was not warranted.  Confiscation Order in the sum of £1 sought.

Details of Mitigation:

The Defence contended that the starting point should be lower on evidential grounds than that for Bain and it was suggested that it should not exceed 5 years.  It was contended that Bain and Scobie were not equal partners and while Scobie did not deny that he was present when the cannabis was taken out (his fingerprints were on the wrappings) he denied being involved in inserting the cannabis inside the box and denied knowing the cannabis was being imported. Scobie claimed before the Sentencing Court that he had been requested by Bain to go to Scotland to purchase the settee that that in turn he would be given the settee and £1,000.  He contended that he knew that something was being imported inside the settee but he did not know what.  It was contented that he was entitled to a full one third for his guilty plea.  Knowing that he was wanted by the Police he had returned and handed himself in knowing that he inevitably faced a lengthy prison sentence.  Pleading guilty and co-operating with the Police was an approach alien to him and to his lifestyle at that time.  The Psychiatric Report produced suggesting that he had cognitive disfunctioning due to a possible head injury whilst living in India and also possibly in consequence of his drinking habits.  He therefore had difficulty in remembering the details of the office.  References supplied.

Previous Convictions:

Previous convictions for dishonesty, violence, motoring and public order.  Previous offences for drugs albeit over 15 years old and of less seriousness according to the record than current offending.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The conclusions were granted.  This was a serious importation involving cannabis with a street value of £92.787.  It was clear at the time that Bain was convicted and sentenced and it was still clear that this was a joint and complex enterprise between Scobie and Bain.  Suffice to say this was a massive importation and the Court was unable to disagree with the Crown's submissions on the starting point and an 8 year starting point was fully justified.  The Court considered Scobie's previous record but did not consider it to be of significance.  There was his guilty plea which was late in the day but he was entitled to reward as a trial was avoided.  A one third reduction was not however inevitable.  The Court was unable to disagree with the Crown's Conclusions.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the defendant.

JUDGMENT

The COMMISSIONER:

1.        When his co-defendant, Stewart Gordon Bain, was sentenced by the Superior Number on the 2^nd December, 1996, 8 years was taken as the starting point. As we said at the time, the street value of this consignment - and we need to remind ourselves of this - was £92,787, but that is of peripheral importance. What is important are Bain's involvement and his criminal activity which was, in our view, very great.  There was no plea of guilty and no co-operation because of that.

2.        Despite everything that Advocate Fogarty has said it was clear to us at the time, and it is clear now that the importation of 16 kilograms of cannabis hidden in a wooden box fixed to the bottom of a settee ordered in Glasgow, but delivered to an address in Jersey had to be a joint and complex enterprise between Bain and Scobie.  Bain was, of course, arrested on the 1^st December, 1995, but Scobie fled the Island.  There is no need to detail how his escape was made or his subsequent lifestyle thereafter. Suffice it to say that on any standing this was a massive importation.

3.        Advocate Fogarty has argued strenuously and very clearly that we should take a different starting point, but we find ourselves unable to disagree with the Crown Advocate that, following Campbell & Ors -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA, 8 years is the appropriate starting point in this case.  We have paid detailed regard to that appeal case and to what was said there: much will depend on the amount and value of the drugs involved, the nature and scale of the activity and, of course, any other facts showing the degree to which the defendant was involved in drug trafficking.

4.        I have to say that we do not regard Scobie's previous record as significant. The plea of guilty was entered very late but - as Advocate Fogarty has said - he is entitled to his reward for his guilty plea because a trial was avoided.  We agree that the one-third rule is not mandatory.  Bearing that in mind, and taking all the points in the Social Enquiry Report, and the references which we have looked at, we have found ourselves unable to disagree with the Crown's conclusions.  We sentence you, therefore, to 5½ years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

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

A.G.-v- Bain (2nd December, 1996) Jersey Unreported; [1996/ 227]