Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/88

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th April, 2001

The Attorney General

-v-

Anthony Lee McFarlane

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 22^nd March, 2002, following a guilty plea to the following count:

Age:     24

Details of Offence:

Arrived off the ferry and stopped by Customs officer and questioned.  His answers were not very plausible and on further questioning he admitted he was carrying "something".  He then removed a white plastic bag from his underwear which contained 1,012 ecstasy tablets with a street value of £12,144.00 (wholesale value between £6,072 and £10,120).

Details of Mitigation:

No previous convictions, guilty plea, powerful mitigation in SER.

Previous Convictions:

None

Conclusions:

5 years' imprisonment (starting point: 9 years).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

4 years' imprisonment.

9 years' starting point correct.  However, mitigation in SER allowed Court to make greater allowance for mitigation.

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.J. Young for the defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The defendant imported 1,012 tablets of ecstasy with a street value of just over £12,000 into Jersey.  Fortunately, he was stopped by Customs officers at Elizabeth Harbour.  The Crown accepts that he was a courier and was carrying the drugs for a fee of some £500.  The case of Bonnar & Noon-v-A.G. (2001) JLR 626 CofA suggests that for this quantity of drugs a starting point of from 9 to 11 years would be appropriate.  That band covers the bracket from 1,000 to 2,500 tablets.  The Crown has suggested therefore a starting point of 9 years.

2.        Mr Young had argued that because of the very unusual circumstances of this case, a starting point of 8 years should be taken, albeit that is just outside the bracket.  We consider that there is no compelling reason in this case to depart from the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal and we do therefore take a starting point of 9 years.

3.        We must then, of course, consider the mitigation, and there is powerful mitigation in this case.  We have the guilty plea, residual youth (he is 24) and most importantly the fact that he has a hitherto good character.  He has not committed any previous offences, despite the fact that he lives in an area of Liverpool where crime is prevalent.  He is clearly remorseful for what has happened and we have read a letter from his mother and a reference.  There is other very unusual mitigation in this case.  In June, 2000, the family home was broken into by a man with a CS gun, who was under the mistaken impression that the accused's brother had been bullying a relative of the assailant.  A CS gun was pointed at the defendant's head and he was beaten.  This was clearly a traumatic incident for him and he received counselling thereafter.  The evidence shows that his character changed; he was unable to hold down employment after that.  He moved to another area where drug dealing is prevalent.  He himself does not have a drug habit although he occasionally uses cannabis for recreational purposes.  In particular, he owes no debts to drug dealers.

4.        Just before the offence a person from Jersey suggested that he should come to the Island to try and find employment.  This clearly became known and he was visited by what can only be described as a gang of drug dealers who prevailed upon him to bring drugs, no doubt with implicit threats of violence should he not do so.  He accepts that he should have stood up to them, but he did not and agreed to bring the drugs into the Island.  All of this, in our judgment, amounts to very exceptional mitigation and accordingly allows us to increase the mitigation allowed for by the Crown.

5.        The sentence of the Court is one of 4 years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

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

Rimmer & Ors-v-AG (2001) JLR 373 CofA.

Bonnar & Noon-v-AG (2001) JLR 626 CofA.

AG-v-Mason (14^th November, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/230].