Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC034

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

13^th February 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Edward Wootton

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 24th January, 2003, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

2 counts of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999: Count 1: Cocaine. Count 3: MDMA.

 

[On 4^th October 2002, defendant pleaded not guilty to counts 2 and 4 of the indictment, which pleas were accepted by the Crown; and co-defendant pleaded not guilty to counts 5 and 6, of which counts he was acquitted by the Inferior Number on 22^nd January 2003.]

 

Age:     26.

 

Details of Offence:

 

The accused was apprehended as he drove off the car ferry from Portsmouth in a Mazda which, on inspection, was found to contain 480 ecstasy tablets and 243.22 grams of cocaine, concealed inside the spare tyre.  The accused was a courier having been invited to make the drugs run to Jersey from Wolverhampton for £250 and the promise of accommodation and work in Jersey.  The value of the cocaine was £15,564 on a wholesale basis, and £19,456 on a retail basis.  The value of the ecstasy was between £2,880 and £4,800 on a wholesale basis, and was worth £4,800 on a retail basis.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The accused had pleaded guilty at a reasonably early stage and had agreed to name his accomplice and in fact gave evidence at the accomplice's trial.  Although the accomplice was acquitted, the Crown accepted that the evidence given by Wootton was truthful and sincere and he was given credit for taking steps to give evidence for the Crown.

 

Previous Convictions:

The accused had one conviction in June 2000 for possession of cannabis, a conviction for theft from a motor vehicle and other motoring offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	6 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	6 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 years imprisonment, concurrent.

 

The Court was impressed with the exceptional co-operation that the accused had given and felt that the Crown had not made sufficient allowance for this in its Conclusions.  The Court therefore reduced further the conclusions of the Crown to 4 years' imprisonment on counts 1 and 3, to run concurrently with each other.

M. St.J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE commissioner:

1.        Wootton was stopped on the 27^th July, in his Mazda car coming off the Portsmouth ferry.  While Wootton admitted his drug habit, he did not admit to having drugs in the vehicle.  X-rays of the spare tyre eventually revealed the presence of the drugs and the total discovered at that time was 162.70 grams of cocaine (83.34 grams had an average of 26% by weight of cocaine and the remainder had 30% by weight of cocaine); 480 MDMA, or ecstasy tablets, containing 82 milligrams per tablet.  Expert analysis assessed the value of the cocaine at £13,016 at street value or £10,412 wholesale value.  The ecstasy street value would be £4,800 and the wholesale value between £2,880 or £4,800.

2.        Later another amount of powder was found in an inflated rubber glove in the tyre.  This held 8.52 grams of cocaine containing 34% by weight of cocaine, with a street value of £6,440, wholesale: £5,152.  In all the cocaine was worth to £19,456 at street value and £15,564 at wholesale value.

3.        Two types of Class A drugs are therefore involved, and we have drawn much consolation from the case of Valler -v- Attorney General (18^th July 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/133] where the Court has said that a distinction is to be drawn between them where two forms of a Class A drug are brought into Jersey.

4.        The learned Crown Advocate has reached certain conclusions.  He submits that if Wootton were sentenced for the importation of the cocaine alone, it would mean that, with 243.22 grams, it would fall within the 10 - 13 year bracket set out in Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG  [2002] JLR 373.  Even though Wootton's rôle in this importation was that of "courier", or "mule", the amount is still at the top end of the bracket.  The Crown would have asked for a starting point of 11 years had Wootton been before this Court for cocaine alone.  However, if he were being sentenced for the importation of the ecstasy alone, namely 480 tablets, that would fall within the 7 - 9 year bracket set out in Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. [2001] JLR 626.

5.        The amount on its own would take Wootton to the top of that bracket, and having balanced his involvement as a courier, the Crown would, apparently, have moved for a starting point of 8 years on the ecstasy alone.  Therefore taking the two amounts together, on the Valler principle, the learned Crown Advocate feels that he could take a starting point of 13 years. 

6.        Advocate Pearmain, of course, has set out that there is much mitigation in this particular case.  Wootton is 26 years old and therefore has residual youth on his side; he has a very supportive family; and has only minor convictions.  He admitted to his drug involvement, and in the year 2000 suffered a mental breakdown.  He had, apparently, no knowledge of the content of the drug that he was bringing into Jersey.  He assisted the police and, of course, made a written statement.

7.        The starting point of 13 years looks only at the quantity of the drugs and we therefore must look at the mitigation.  The Crown has, quite rightly, allowed a substantial reduction for the fact that he has named and given evidence against his fellow importer.  We have looked at the two cases of A.G. -v- Jones & Anor (6^th June, 1996) Jersey Unreported and A.G. -v- Marella & Others (2^nd May, 1996) Jersey Unreported, which were referred to us by Advocate Pearmain.  Both these cases deal with co-operation. 

8.        We have also a letter from the Deputy Bailiff who presided over the trial of Nathan Yates who was in the event acquitted.  It is clear that, although there was no conviction, Wootton named his accomplice in open court and gave evidence against him.  It is clear from the letter that we received from the Deputy Bailiff that it is considered that it was a genuine attempt to bring to the Court's notice the complicity of Nathan Yates.  He has put himself in jeopardy now and in the future, for his actions, which are not only unusual, but which, if we may say so, are also eminently praiseworthy and deserving, in our view, of a very substantial reduction, and in fact a greater reduction than that given by the Crown.  On that basis, because of the amount of co-operation given, and because of the very unusual circumstances of the case, we are going to further reduce the conclusions of the Crown.  Therefore you are sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on count 1: count 2 is left on the file: 4 years' imprisonment on count 3, that is concurrent to count 1 and count 4 is left on the file and we order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Valler -v- A.G. (18^th July, 2002() Jersey Unreported; [2002/133].

Rimmer, Lusk & Bade -v-A.G. [2001] JLR 373.

Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. [2001] JLR 626.

Simpson -v- A.G. [2003] JCA 007.

A.G. -v- Chadwick (30^th October, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Akehurst (29^th July, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Ahmed (10^th October, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/188].

A.G. -v- Jones & Anor (6^th June, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. Marella & Others (2^nd May, 1996) Jersey Unreported.