Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/68

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

25^th March 2002.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

John Peter Le Mière

Stuart William Blackmore

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 8th February, 2002, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

 

JOHN PETER LE MIERE:

3 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 2: heroin Count 4: heroin Count 6: ecstasy

 

 

           

 

Details of Offence:

Le Miere was seen by Waterworks employees to be acting suspiciously in Fern Valley after his vehicle became stuck on a bank.  Their suspicions were reported to the police who attended after the vehicle had been removed and Le Miere had left the scene.  The police found, concealed in a hole in the ground on a cotil, a tupperware box containing two packages of brown powder, two bags containing tablets and a number of syringes.  They removed the drugs and kept watch on the location.  Later the same day a car driven by Blackmore, with Le Miere in the passenger seat, was seen to reverse up the track and to stop parallel to the stash point on the cotil.  Le Miere was seen to climb up the cotil to the stash point, look hard at the area before turning back and making his way down the cotil.  Le Miere and Blackmore were immediately arrested and a further plastic bag containing brown powder was found in the car.  The bags found in the stash point contained a total of 191.7 grams of heroin together with 192 ecstasy tablets.  The package found in the car contained 74.1 grams of heroin.  A further ecstasy tablet was found in the boot of the car.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Although Le Miere made little or no comment when questioned he ultimately pleaded guilty and, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence against him, no fingerprints having been found on the bags, he was entitled to credit for his guilty plea.  Le Miere was dealing in drugs in order to support his admitted heroin habit.  Blackmore had driven Le Miere to the valley without knowing the purpose of the visit.  Le Miere had got out of the car, removed the plastic bag containing brown powder from under a bush and placed it on the dashboard of the car.  Blackmore's only involvement with the drugs had been to move the package from the dashboard to under the seat when he saw persons, who ultimately turned out to be the police officers, approaching the vehicle.  His only intention to supply was therefore to hand them back to Le Miere.  Although he had a poor record there were no drug related convictions.

 

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous, commencing in 1998 with motoring offences, graduating to taking and driving away motor vehicles and then breaking and entry.  Drug offences commenced in 1992 with a conviction in France for importation and possession of drugs when he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.  In January 2002 he was sentenced to imprisonment for various offences which included possession of cannabis and ecstasy.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 2:	8 years' imprisonment
Count 4:	8 years' imprisonment
Count 6:	5 years' imprisonment; all concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

A 12 year starting point was appropriate for counts 2 and 4 and 7 years for count 6.  Blackmore was an exceptional case where it could not be said that he was involved in drug trafficking and the court was accordingly prepared to deal with him outside the Campbell guidelines.

 

STUART WILLIAM BLACKMORE:

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 8: heroin.
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Count 9: ecstasy.
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948. (Count 10.)

 

 

 

 

Details of Offence:

See Le Mière.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See Le Mière.

 

 

Previous Convictions:

A number of previous convictions including breaking and entry, larceny and various motoring offences.  Most recent conviction was for a motoring offence in 1998.  No drug related convictions.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 8:	2 year Probation Order, with condition of attendance at SMART Course.
Count 9:	2 year Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 10:	2 year Probation Order, concurrent  with 12 months disqualification from driving

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

A 12 year starting point was appropriate for counts 2 and 4 and 7 years for count 6.  Blackmore was an exceptional case where it could not be said that he was involved in drug trafficking and the court was accordingly prepared to deal with him outside the Campbell guidelines.

 

[On 8^th February, 2002, the Court ordered that the remaining counts on the Indictment, counts 1, 3, 5, and 7, should remain on the Court file and these counts were formally withdrawn on 25^th March, 2002].

 

A.R. Binnington Esq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.J. Young for J. D. Le Mière.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for S.W. Blackmore.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Le Mière has pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply of 265 grams of heroin and 192 Ecstasy tablets.  It is clear that he was dealing in order to fund his own drug habit.  The case of Rimmer, Lusk and Bade suggests a starting point of between 11 and 14 years for amounts of between 250 and 400 grams of heroin, but as stated in the case of Valler we must also take into account the 192 Ecstasy tablets in order to fix upon the nature and scale of the drug dealing.  We agree therefore with the Crown that having regard to this, the correct starting point is one of 12 years for the heroin charge, and 7 years for the Ecstasy charge.

2.        In mitigation Mr Young referred to the guilty plea and we accept that this was something for which Le Mière is entitled to credit because the evidence against him was circumstantial, albeit fairly strong.   We accept therefore that a full discount is appropriate; however, there is little other mitigation.  Le Mière has previous drug convictions, including one for importing drugs into France, and, all in all, we think that the Crown has made adequate allowances.  Stand up please Le Mière, the sentence of the Court in your case is 8 years imprisonment on count 2, 8 years imprisonment on count 4, 5 years imprisonment on count 6, all concurrent, making a total of 8 years imprisonment.

3.        Blackmore is also charged with possession with intent to supply 74 grams of heroin.  However, this is an unusual case and we regard the possession as having been of a technical variety.  We accept that Blackmore did not know the purpose of the trip to Fern Valley.  He undertook this at the request of Le Mière, and it was only moments before the police came that Le Mière got out of the car in order to get some heroin which he placed on the dash board.

4.        The offence committed by Blackmore was that, when he saw someone coming, at a time when Le Mière was out of the car looking at the stash elsewhere, he moved the heroin and hid it under the passenger seat intending obviously to return it to Le Mière afterwards.   In our judgement this is not a case of commercial drug trafficking, and the Campbell guidelines do not apply.

5.        We have considered carefully all the information contained in the reports and in the many references with which we have been provided.  Having regard to those matters and the very technical nature of the offence and the momentary nature of it, we can deal with this by way of a non-custodial penalty.   Stand up please Blackmore.  We are going to place you on probation for 2 years, on all three counts which you face, with a condition that you attend the SMART course, and I must warn you that you must stick to the conditions of the probation order: you must attend the course, and you must do what your Probation Officer says; you must not re-offend during the 2 year period because if you do you will be brought back to the Court, and you will then face a prison sentence for what you have done on this occasion. 

6.        We also disqualify the defendant from driving for 12 months in relation to count 10.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of all the drugs in this case, and finally we would like to commend the staff at the Waterworks Company who showed great initiative in reporting their suspicions to the police, having seen Le Mière on the track in Fern Valley the day before.

Authorities

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade -v- A.G. (19^th July, 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/148]; (2001) JLR 373 CofA.

Bonner and Noon-v-A.G (26^th October, 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA  [2001/212].

R -v- Appleton [1999] Cr. App.R (S) 289.

A.G -v- Valler (26^th February, 2002) Jersey Unreported: [2002/48]