Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/190

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

10^th October 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

David Alan Perry

Neil John Bevan

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 28th June, 2002, after entering guilty pleas to the following counts in the joint indictment laid against them:

 

David Alan Perry

 

2 counts of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 3: MDMA Count 4: cannabis
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 8: MDMA Count 9: cannabis

 

[On 28^th June, 2002, the defendant pleaded not guilty to counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, which pleas were accepted by the Crown].

Age:     32

 

Details of Offence:

Bevan asked Perry to store his drugs, namely cannabis and ecstasy tablets.  Perry stored them in his coal shed.  A small amount of ecstasy was kept in a cup in the kitchen, from which Bevan helped himself from time to time.  Perry's cohabitee and mother of their infant son was very unhappy about drugs being stored at their home.  It led to arguments and Perry telephoned Bevan on a number of occasions, asking him to remove them.  After approximately 10 days Bevan agreed to meet Perry at a pub where Perry was to hand over the drugs.  Perry was seen by police officers leaving his home address on foot, carrying a white plastic bag.  He walked to the Dorset Tavern where he met Bevan.  He was observed handing the white plastic bag to Bevan.  As Bevan moved away a police officer arrested him after a brief struggle.  Two other police officers stopped Perry as he ran away from the Dorset Tavern.  He too was arrested.  During a search of Perry's home 26 ecstasy tablets were found in a cup in the kitchen (Count 8) and 1 nine bar of cannabis was found in his coal shed (Count 9).  Perry had forgotten about the presence of the ecstasy in the kitchen cup and in his haste to put the cannabis in the plastic bag, had left one behind in the coal shed.  In return for looking after the drugs, Bevan said he would waive a debt of £400, being money he had lent Perry for a flight home to attend his grandmother's funeral.  Perry was frank at interview.  Bevan was less co-operative and whilst he said he thought there might be cannabis in the bag, he denied any knowledge of ecstasy.  In total there were 479 ecstasy tablets (453 in the plastic bag and 26 in the kitchen cup) and 12 nine bars of cannabis (11 bars in the plastic bag and 1 in the coal shed).  Street value of cannabis £17,280, and street value of ecstasy £5,748.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, but both caught red handed.  Bevan nearer the source than Perry.  Bevan claimed to be holding the drugs for someone else whom he would not name and denied visiting Perry from time to time for ecstasy tablets.  Injured in a road traffic accident which had rendered him unfit to work for some time and currently unemployed.  Remorse.  Perry - the debt to be waived was not a drugs debt.  Had been duped by Bevan.  Starting point not challenged.  A true "cloakroom attendant" whose involvement in trafficking very limited, therefore should be given more discount.  Co-operative with the police   No previous drugs offence.  Had complied with bail conditions.  Had a fiancée and a child.

 

Previous Convictions:

Four previous Court appearances.  None in Relation to drugs.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 3:	5 years' imprisonment: - starting point: 7½ years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	2 ½ years' imprisonment, concurrent: - starting point 3 years 8 months' imprisonment
Count 8:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Neil John Bevan

 

2 counts of:

Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 5: MDMA Count 6: cannabis

 

[On 28^th June, 2002, the Crown accepted the defendant's not guilty plea to count 7 of the indictment].

Age:     28.

 

Details of Offence:

See Perry above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See Perry above.

 

Previous Convictions:

Six previous Court appearances.  Conviction in April, 2002 for possession of cannabis.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 5:	5 ½  years' imprisonment: - starting point: 8 years' imprisonment.
Count 6:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent: - starting point: 4 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Conclusions granted.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.C. Gollop for D A Perry

Advocate K.C.J. Berry for N. J. Bevan

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Despite the powerful arguments of both counsel, at the end of the day we have a total haul of drugs involving 479 ecstasy tablets and 12 nine bars of cannabis totalling 2,960.34 grams with a total street value of the ecstasy tablets being £5,748 and of the cannabis £17,280.

2.        We will start with Bevan, and we are able to distinguish his case from Perry.  We have no doubt that the starting point for Bevan is 8 years.  Bevan is the manipulator, he has sufficient funds, even though he is not working, to lend money to an acquaintance who does not even know his surname; he gives drugs to this acquaintance, which must have cost a considerable sum to acquire - some £15,000 worth.  In fixing the starting point we have had regard to the appeal of Bonnar and Noon -v-A.G. (2001) JLR 626 CofA.  We have to say that anybody who deals in Class A drugs must be dealt with severely, not only to punish them, but to try and deter others from engaging in this vicious trade.

3.        Bevan has a plea of guilty which is good mitigation; we have some very detailed background reports which are helpful.  But Bevan, despite the careful arguments of your defence counsel, we are not going to depart from the Crown's conclusions, and you are sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment on count 5: and 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent, on count 6;  that is a total of 5½ years.

4.        We turn now to Perry; we can see nothing but stupidity in Perry's naïve behaviour.  We think he was drawn into this by some evil manipulators.  Because of his minimal involvement and following Bonnar and Noon -v- A.G. we are not sure that 7½ years is an appropriate starting point and we are going to start with 6 years.  There is a passage in the Probation Report which reads as follows:

"He claims that he had stored the package in his coal shed but was having sleepless nights worrying about it.  His fiancée had found the drugs.  They rowed and discussed whether they should take them to the police or just dump them.  If they took the latter action, there was the dilemma of children finding them.  He states that he was unable to locate his co-defendant, as he did not know where he lived.  Eight days after taking possession he found him and told him that he was not prepared to continue to store them.  The defendants met at a pre-arranged location but were arrested".

5.        If that is so then Perry has been used.  He is, as Mr Gollop has said, gullible, but nobody in our view, however gullible, could have avoided the fact that he was the custodian of a large amount of illicit drugs, and his decision was to return those drugs to Bevan.  He was arrested at that point.  We have considered community service carefully and had Perry stood alone in this trial we might not have reached the conclusion that we have.  He has excellent references and this is his first major offence but we are going to sentence you to 2 years' imprisonment, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  I think I should break this down, Mr Gollop: 2 years on count 3; 2 years on count 4; to run concurrently with 2 years on count 8; and 6 months on count 9.

Authorities

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

Bonnar and Noon-v-A.G. (2001) JLR 626 CofA.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): pp.66 - 76.

A.G.-v- Layton (4^th July, 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/126].