Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/86

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

29^th April 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Lee Thomas Buckley

Trevor Croke

Aimée Crook

Michael John Breen

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number as follows:

 

Lee Thomas Buckley

 

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 1: heroin Count 3: heroin

 

[On 26^th October, 2001, the Defendant pleaded not guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Indictment.  On 21^st January, 2002 he changed his plea to guilty to Counts 1 and 3, and the Crown abandoned the prosecution on Counts 2 and 4.]

 

Age:

24        

 

Details of Offence:

All defendants were arrested in June 2001 following an extensive undercover surveillance operation from February 2001, code-named "Operation Squirrel", in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police authorised the installation of covert listening devices or "probes" into CROKE's home address and motorcar.  A covert video camera was installed in premises near to CROKE's home address.  Evidence of conversations gathered during "Operation Squirrel" gave rise to the Counts on the Indictment.

Count 1: On 27 February 2001 17.8 grams of powder, containing 48% pure diamorphine, with a street value of between £5,340 and £8,010, was by chance found stashed in a tree bole in St. Helier.  A recorded conversation between CROKE and BUCKLEY in CROKE's car directly linked the two with the heroin, confirming that BUCKLEY had stashed the heroin in question in the tree on the instruction of CROKE.  BUCKLEY's 'DNA' was subsequently confirmed to be on some of the packaging of the heroin.

Count 3: On Sunday 18th March 2001 recorded conversations between BUCKLEY and CROKE confirmed that BUCKLEY had stashed heroin in a bush on the order of CROKE.  Police officers subsequently ascertained the location and 19.35 grams of powder, comprising an average of 44-48% pure diamorphine, with a street value of between £5,805 and £8,707, was covertly recovered by police officers.  Observations were then maintained on the location and the following evening CROKE and BUCKLEY returned to collect the heroin.  Video recordings were made of their frantic search and a subsequent recorded conversation in CROKE's car further confirmed their involvement, worry being heard in their voices over the heroin having been removed.  BUCKLEY's 'DNA' was subsequently confirmed to be present on packaging recovered. 

.

Details of Mitigation:

Long-standing heroin addict and CROKE's "runner".  An aggravating feature is that both offences were committed whilst BUCKLEY was on bail facing trial for possession with intent to supply commercial quantity of heroin for which he was convicted in August 2001 and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.  Mitigation in August 2001 that BUCKLEY had been "drug free" for 11 months was, by his current pleas, clearly untrue.  BUCKLEY was regarded as a victim of, but essential in, CROKE's drug-dealing enterprise.  BUCKLEY made no challenge to the admissibility of the recorded transcripts.  Now taking positive steps whilst in custody to rehabilitate.

 

Previous Convictions:

A number for dishonesty and drug-related offences.  At  the date of sentencing, serving a 6-year term of imprisonment for, inter alia, possession with intent to supply a commercial quantity of heroin

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment (9 year starting point)
Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent (9 year starting point)

 

Sentence to follow consecutively sentence of 6 years' imprisonment at present being served.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Conclusions granted.

Ordinarily Counts 1 and 3 would carry a starting point of 9 years.  Given the wholly exceptional circumstances, a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was appropriate on Counts 1 and 3.  Had the Court in August 2001 been sentencing BUCKLEY on Counts 1 and 3 plus the further offence for which he is now serving 6 years, 9 years would have been the appropriate sentence on all three counts.

 

Trevor Croke:

 

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 1: heroin Count 3: heroin
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 Count 6: heroin

 

[On 26^th October, the Defendant pleaded not guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Indictment; on 22^nd January, 2002 he changed his plea to guilty on Counts 1, 3, and 6,and the Crown abandoned the prosecution on Counts 2 and 4.]

 

Age:

31        

 

Details of Offence:

All defendants were arrested in June 2001 following an extensive undercover surveillance operation from February 2001, code-named "Operation Squirrel", in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police authorised the installation of covert listening devices or "probes" into CROKE's home address and motorcar.  A covert video camera was installed in premises near to CROKE's home address.  Evidence of conversations gathered during "Operation Squirrel" gave rise to the Counts on the Indictment.

Count 1: On 27 February 2001 17.8 grams of powder, containing 48% pure diamorphine, with a street value of between £5,340 and £8,010, was by chance found stashed in a tree bole in St. Helier.  A recorded conversation between CROKE and BUCKLEY in CROKE's car directly linked the two with the heroin, confirming that BUCKLEY had stashed the heroin in question in the tree on the instruction of CROKE.  BUCKLEY's 'DNA' was subsequently confirmed to be on some of the packaging of the heroin.

Count 3: On Sunday 18th March 2001 recorded conversations between BUCKLEY and CROKE confirmed that BUCKLEY had stashed heroin in a bush on the order of CROKE.  Police officers subsequently ascertained the location and 19.35 grams of powder, comprising an average of 44-48% pure diamorphine, with a street value of between £5,805 and £8,707, was covertly recovered by police officers.  Observations were then maintained on the location and the following evening CROKE and BUCKLEY returned to collect the heroin.  Video recordings were made of their frantic search and a subsequent recorded conversation in CROKE's car further confirmed their involvement, worry being heard in their voices over the heroin having been removed.  BUCKLEY's 'DNA' was subsequently confirmed to be present on packaging recovered.

 

Count 6: CROKE met BREEN on 29 May 2001 for the first time and lengthy conversations between the two were recorded about the drugs trade and its profitability in Jersey.  BREEN confirmed that whilst next in Dublin that he would speak to his contacts to "set the ball rolling" for what the Crown argue was a commercial quantity of heroin to be made available for delivery in due course to CROKE in Jersey.

 

Subsequently BREEN and CROKE met on a number of occasions and, as a joint venture, contact was made with Aimee CROOK, a heroin addict, to bring heroin back with her from her imminent trip to Dublin.  CROOK agreed to do the drug 'run' because of money owed by her to CROKE.  CROOK flew out from Jersey on 14 June 2001.  CROOK was finally detained at Jersey Airport on 24 June 2001, on her return, with 118.71 grams of heroin (54-55% purity) with a street value of £35,613.00 to £53,419.50, which had been stashed in her knickers.

 

Arrests of BUCKLEY, BREEN and CROKE were effected on 25 June 2001.  BUCKLEY remained silent in interview.  CROKE and BREEN both lied, denying any involvement in the offences. 

 

Admissibility of the recorded transcripts was subject to legal challenge on behalf of CROKE and BREEN.

 

Details of Mitigation:

A native of EIRE.  Professional drug-dealer and regarded by the Crown to be a major player in the local drugs scene.  Recorded conversations indicated the high level of involvement on CROKE's part in the local supply of, in particular, Class 'A' drugs and the importation of drugs into the Island.  CROKE was recorded as stating to BREEN that he had made "a million" from the sale of illegal drugs.  The Crown is unsure as to whether this was in fact true or bravado.  Eventually guilty pleas in January 2002 following an extensive review by the Crown of all transcripts and a ruling on admissibility.  The transcripts of the recorded conversations, once ruled admissible, were so damning as evidence of guilt that in reality CROKE had no option but to plead guilty.

 

Previous Convictions:

A number of drug related convictions & for dishonesty.

.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	7 years' imprisonment (9 year starting point).
Count 3:	7 years' imprisonment, concurrent (9 year starting point)
Count 6:	12 years' imprisonment, concurrent (14 year starting point)

 

Deportation recommended.

           

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	7 years' imprisonment (9 year starting point)
Count 3:	7 years' imprisonment, concurrent (9 year starting point)
Count 6:	11 years' imprisonment, concurrent (14 year starting point)

 

Deportation recommended.

In relation to CROKE the Court observed that it is unusual for the Court to be sentencing a professional drug-dealer.  To ensure adequate, additional penalties on Counts 1 and 3 to Count 6, the Court concluded it to be appropriate, in the exceptional circumstances, to move outside the band (10 - 13 years) as set out in Rimmer, Lusk & Bade v AG (19 July 2001) Jersey Unrep. CofA 148 and a starting point of 14 years appropriate which after all relevant mitigation and surrounding circumstances be reduced to a total of 11 years imprisonment.  Deportation recommended after the Court balanced the possible hardship to be endured by CROKE's Jersey-born partner and children against the detrimental effect to the Island were CROKE allowed to remain in Jersey upon his release given the seriousness of the offences committed by him.

 

Aimée Crook:

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug., contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 Count 5:  cannabis resin.
1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of controlled drugs contrary to Article 6 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law Count 6: heroin.

 

[On 21^st October, 2001 the Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts]

 

Age:

24        

 

Details of Offence:

All defendants were arrested in June 2001 following an extensive undercover surveillance operation from February 2001, code-named "Operation Squirrel", in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police authorised the installation of covert listening devices or "probes" into CROKE's home address and motorcar.  A covert video camera was installed in premises near to CROKE's home address.  Evidence of conversations gathered during "Operation Squirrel" gave rise to the Counts on the Indictment.

Count 5: related to CROOK's possession of a very small amount of cannabis, for herb own use on 8^th May, 2001.

 

Count 6: CROKE met BREEN on 29 May 2001 for the first time and lengthy conversations between the two were recorded about the drugs trade and its profitability in Jersey.  BREEN confirmed that whilst next in Dublin that he would speak to his contacts to "set the ball rolling" for what the Crown argue was a commercial quantity of heroin to be made available for delivery in due course to CROKE in Jersey.

 

Subsequently BREEN and CROKE met on a number of occasions and, as a joint venture, contact was made with Aimee CROOK, a heroin addict, to bring heroin back with her from her imminent trip to Dublin.  CROOK agreed to do the drug 'run' because of money owed by her to CROKE.  CROOK flew out from Jersey on 14 June 2001.  CROOK was finally detained at Jersey Airport on 24 June 2001, on her return, with 118.71 grams of heroin (54-55% purity) with a street value of £35,613.00 to £53,419.50, which had been stashed in her knickers.

 

Arrests of BUCKLEY, BREEN and CROKE were effected on 25 June 2001.  BUCKLEY remained silent in interview.  CROKE and BREEN both lied, denying any involvement in the offences. 

 

Admissibility of the recorded transcripts was subject to legal challenge on behalf of CROKE and BREEN.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Long-standing drug and heroin addict.  Difficult family history leading to alcohol and drug abuse.  Attempted to take own life twice whilst in custody.  No evidence to suggest that CROOK was to have been involved in the onward supply of the heroin once imported.  Guilty pleas from outset.

 

Previous Convictions:

A number of drug related convictions and for motoring offences, but none for dishonesty.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment
Count 6:	8 years' imprisonment, concurrent  (11 year starting point)

           

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment
Count 6:	7 years' imprisonment, concurrent (10 year starting point)

 

Appropriate starting point 10 years' imprisonment given it was not a commercial venture as such for CROOK.  Given all relevant mitigation 7 years' imprisonment appropriate.

 

 

Michael John Breen

 

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 Count 6: heroin.

 

[On 21^st October, 2001, the Defendant pleaded not guilty and was tried by the Inferior Number "en police correctionnelle" on 4 - 6^th March, 2002, and was convicted on 6^th March, 2002.]

 

Age:

26        

 

Details of Offence:

All defendants were arrested in June 2001 following an extensive undercover surveillance operation from February 2001, code-named "Operation Squirrel", in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police authorised the installation of covert listening devices or "probes" into CROKE's home address and motorcar.  A covert video camera was installed in premises near to CROKE's home address.  Evidence of conversations gathered during "Operation Squirrel" gave rise to the Counts on the Indictment.

 

Count 6: CROKE met BREEN on 29 May 2001 for the first time and lengthy conversations between the two were recorded about the drugs trade and its profitability in Jersey.  BREEN confirmed that whilst next in Dublin that he would speak to his contacts to "set the ball rolling" for what the Crown argue was a commercial quantity of heroin to be made available for delivery in due course to CROKE in Jersey.

 

Subsequently BREEN and CROKE met on a number of occasions and, as a joint venture, contact was made with Aimee CROOK, a heroin addict, to bring heroin back with her from her imminent trip to Dublin.  CROOK agreed to do the drug 'run' because of money owed by her to CROKE.  CROOK flew out from Jersey on 14 June 2001.  CROOK was finally detained at Jersey Airport on 24 June 2001, on her return, with 118.71 grams of heroin (54-55% purity) with a street value of £35,613.00 to £53,419.50, which had been stashed in her knickers.

 

Arrests of BUCKLEY, BREEN and CROKE were effected on 25 June 2001.  BUCKLEY remained silent in interview.  CROKE and BREEN both lied, denying any involvement in the offences. 

 

Admissibility of the recorded transcripts was subject to legal challenge on behalf of CROKE and BREEN.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

A native of Dublin and heavy heroin addict.  Only mitigation was residual youth.  "Not guilty" pleas were maintained throughout

 

Previous Convictions:

A number of convictions for serious offences in Ireland, resulting in extended periods of imprisonment. No drug related offences recorded.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 6:

10 years' imprisonment (11 year starting point).

 

Deportation recommended.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Conclusions granted.

The Court approved a starting point of 11 years.  Given BREEN's role and limited mitigation, 10 years' imprisonment appropriate

 

 

 

Advocate B.H. Lacey, Crown Advocate.

Advocate L.J. Kerruish for L.T. Buckley

Advocate  C.J. Scholefield for T. Croke

Advocate A.J.D. Winchester for A. Crook

Advocate M.L. Preston for M.J. Breen.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        I will deal with Croke first.   Croke, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of being concerned in the importation of 118 grams of heroin with a street value of between £35,000 and £53,000 and two offences of possession with intent to supply heroin on separate occasions, 17.8 grams on one occasion and 19.34 grams on the other.

2.        As regards the importation offence, the appeal of Rimmer, Lusk, Bade -v- A.G. (2001) JLR 373 CofA suggests a starting point of 10 to 13 years for amounts of 100 to 250 grams.   However, the Court of Appeal expressly stated that the bands are not to be treated as if set in stone.   They are only guidelines and there may be exceptional cases where a starting point above or below the relevant band maybe appropriate.  

3.        We are quite satisfied that you are a professional drug dealer who has arranged the importation and onward distribution of heroin for gain.   As you admitted in the taped conversations from the surveillance operation you have not been gainfully employed since your arrival in Jersey in 1993 and we have no doubt that in addition to your partner's earnings you have lived off your drug dealing activities.   You have had no regard to the damage that your trade has caused to those who have purchased the heroin nor to the distress that it has caused to the families of such people.

4.        We must sentence you today only for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty.   However, we are told by the Court of Appeal to have regard to the nature and scale of your activities and the degree of your involvement in drug trafficking.   So often the Court has to deal with a courier who on a single occasion and for modest reward imports a consignment of heroin.   We regard your activities as showing a much greater involvement in the drug trafficking trade than such a courier.   You organised this importation.  You recruited Aimée Crook as a courier and you would  have benefited financially from the onward sale of the heroin which she brought in.   Similarly the heroin in the other two counts was part of your stock in trade.   If the importation charge had stood alone then, in the light of the degree of your involvement in organising it, we consider that a starting point towards the top end of the 10 to 13 year bracket would have been appropriate.   But we need also to take into account the additional charges which you face, and for the reasons set out in A.G. -v- Valler (28^th February, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/48], having regard to the nature and scale of your activities and the level of your involvement in drug trafficking for gain, we consider that this is one of those rare cases where we should step outside the bands in Rimmer and agree with the starting point suggested by the Crown of 14 years.   In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea.   This was not tendered initially; you denied it until the Court ruled against you on the admissibility of the surveillance evidence but you then admitted your guilt forthwith.   We also take into account that you have had the care of two young children, to whom clearly you are devoted.   We also take into account that you have no previous convictions for drug trafficking although you do have a number of previous convictions including possession of drugs.  

5.        In all the circumstances - and particularly having regard to the comments of the Court of Appeal in Welsh -v- A.G. (4^th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/72] CofA., to which we were referred - we think that a greater allowance should be made for the guilty plea than was made by the Crown.   We think that the right amount to deduct for all the mitigation is 3 years.   So the sentence in your case is: count 1, 7 years'; count 3, 7 years'; count 6, 11 years';  all of those to be concurrent.

6.        We must also consider the suggestion that we should make a recommendation for deportation.   We have regard to the principles set out in the case of R. -v- Nazari [1980] 3 All ER 880 CA.   We have no doubt whatsoever that in view of your activities your continued presence in Jersey would be detrimental to the community.   We must, however, consider the effect of a recommendation for deportation upon your family.  You have a Jersey born partner and you have two Jersey born children.   Nevertheless, we have to balance any hardship which would be caused to them in moving to Ireland upon your release - if the family unit were to remain - and the detriment caused to the island if you were to remain here.   We have no doubt that, in the circumstances our duty to the community is to recommend deportation and we will make that recommendation. 

7.        Breen, you were convicted by this Court of being concerned in the importation of the 118 grams of heroin by Aimée Crook.  You were found to have acted as middle man between Croke and the supplier in Ireland.   Having regard to the nature and scale of your involvement in that importation we think that the correct starting point in the 10 to 13 year band is one of 11 years as suggested by the Crown.   There is no mitigation available to you for a guilty plea because you pleaded not guilty.   You also have a previous record, including some quite serious offences, but you have no previous convictions for drug offences.   We accept that you are a heroin addict and that this was material to your involvement.   In all the circumstances we think that the deduction made by the Crown of one year is correct and therefore the sentence in your case on count 6 is one of 10 years' imprisonment.  In relation to deportation we apply the same principles.   You, of course, had only just arrived in the island, you have no connection with Jersey and you have no family here.   We are of the view that your continued presence in Jersey would be detrimental to the community and we therefore will make a recommendation for deportation.

8.        Buckley, you are already serving a sentence of 6 years imprisonment for possession with intent to supply some 35 grams of heroin in August, 1999.   You are now to be dealt with for two counts of possession with intent to supply in relation to an aggregate of about 37 grams.   We accept that you were assisting Croke in the storage of two stashes of heroin pending their onward distribution.   However, these offences were committed whilst you were on bail awaiting trial for the offences for which you are now in prison and they give the lie to your assertion before the Court in August 2001 that you had not been concerned with heroin for some eleven months.   Nevertheless, you have pleaded guilty to these offences from the outset and that stands to your credit.   We have also read your letter and the letter from your parents and  your girlfriend and we have taken careful note of what they say.  It is clear to us that you are making determined attempts now to try and turn your life around and in particular to try and overcome your heroin addiction which has led to your commission of all these offences.

9.        In the light of the fact that these offences were committed before you were dealt with for the other offences in August, we have to try and stand back and see what would be the correct sentence for all of these offences taken together; in other words three separate offences of possession with intent to supply the relevant amounts of heroin by storing them.   The position is complicated by the fact that you pleaded not guilty to the offence for which you are now in prison but guilty to these.   Taking account of your age, your plea of guilty to these offences and the other mitigation which has been put forward by your family and by you, we think that the correct overall sentence for all three is, as the Crown suggests, a period of 9 years.   In order to arrive at that sentence the sentence for these particular offences will therefore be one of 3 years' on counts 1 and 3, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentence which you are now serving.

10.      Aimée Crook, you were recruited by Croke to act as a courier for the importation of 118 grams.   This you willingly agreed to do but we are in no doubt that you did so because you are a heroin addict and you owed money to Croke.   The Rimmer guideline would suggest 10 to 13 years for 100 - 250 grams.   The Crown has suggested a starting point of 11 years but we see no justification for moving above the minimum in view of the amount, which was close to the bottom of the band and your role, which was as a courier.  We therefore take a starting point of 10 years.   In mitigation we take into account your age, your guilty plea from the outset, your troubled background, which we have had described to us, and all the information contained in the reports and also the letter from your mother and from you which we have read.   We hope that you too can conquer your heroin addiction whilst you are in prison and we take note of the efforts you are making.   All in all we think that the correct deduction is one of 3 years and therefore the sentence in your case on count 6 will be one of 7 years' imprisonment.

11.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of all the drugs in this case.

12.      Finally, we would like to endorse the comments of the Crown Advocate concerning the efforts of the police and customs team in this case.   We can well understand that this was a prolonged investigation with long, anti-social hours and having to work in difficult circumstances.   All of the members of the team led by Inspector Bonney can be very proud of their success in putting a stop to the activities of these defendants.

Authorities

Welsh -v- A.G. (4^th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/72] CofA.

Rimmer, Lusk, Bade -v- A.G. (2001) JLR 373 CofA.

A.G. -v- Valler (28^th February, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/48].

A.G. -v- Moy (10^th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/7].

A.G. -v- Price (2^nd August, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/170].

A.G. -v- Buckley (7^th August, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/179].

Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988: Article 3,3A.

R. -v- Nazari [1980] 3 All ER 880 CA.