Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC100

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

20^th June 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Charles Robin Harriott

 

 

1 count of:

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

 

 

Age:     38.

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

Customs officers retrieved a green suitcase which had been left on the luggage carousel following the arrival of the MV Commodore Clipper from Portsmouth at Elizabeth Harbour Ferry Terminal.  On searching the suitcase, officers discovered nine tape wrapped packages which contained a total of 6,388.86 grams of herbal cannabis.  The suitcase belonged to the Defendant who had travelled to Jersey under the name of Paul Howard Chard.  In interview at the Customs' search area, the Defendant admitted to using a false name, but, on transfer to Police Headquarters, he gave "no comment" answers in police interview.  The Defendant was charged on 1 April 2003 and reserved his plea in the Magistrate's Court until he eventually pleaded guilty to the offence.  He was presented before the Inferior Number on 23 May 2003.  Expert evidence indicated that the street value of the drugs was between £35,360 and £44,200.00.

 

Details of Mitigation:

This was the Defendant's first drug trafficking offence.

He was acting as a courier.

He owed the supplier a drugs debt and was therefore easy prey.

He eventually pleased guilty to the offence.

The effect and trauma of a violent assault which the Defendant sustained in December 2000 which resulted in a profound loss of hearing.

The Defendant was remorseful.

 

Previous Convictions:

The Defendant has five previous convictions from 1994 onwards for fraud and theft offences, including one previous drugs offence for possession of a Class B drug dating back to 1997.

 

Conclusions:

 

30 months' imprisonment. (4 years' starting point). Forfeiture and destruction of drugs.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

2 years' imprisonment.

The Court agreed with the starting point of four years but took into account mitigation of the Defendant's guilty plea and the fact that he had no previous drug trafficking offences.  The Court also acknowledged the unusual circumstances of the Defendant's heroin addiction which resulted from his loss of hearing following a violent assault.  The Court also recognised that the Defendant had incurred a drugs debt, had been threatened with violence until he undertook the delivery.  The Court noted that the Defendant was particularly susceptible to threats of violence.

 

The conclusions would be reduced as an act of mercy in this particular case.

 

A.J. Olsen, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Grace for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        In order to pay off a drug debt incurred because of your heroin habit, you imported 6.39 kilos of cannabis with a street value of between £35,000 and £44,000.  The Court agrees with the Crown's conclusions that the starting point should be 4 years.  Your advocate has put forward mitigation on your behalf and she has referred to your guilty plea, to the fact that you admitted what you had done and that you had no previous drug offence convictions. 

2.        She also explained the unusual circumstances in which you came to have a heroin addiction: in December, 2000, you were assaulted and as a result you lost your hearing almost entirely.  It was on that basis that you then turned to heroin.  You incurred a drug debt and were threatened that unless you carried out the drug run to Jersey you would face violence.  You were told you would be forgiven the debt if you did so; you were particularly frightened of violence, because you had been told by your doctor that you could be permanently physically disabled by a further blow to your head.

3.        Threats from drug dealers are not an excuse or mitigation for carrying out a drug run.  Those who incur drug debts have only themselves to blame.  But the circumstances in which you came to have an addiction are unusual and, as an act of mercy, we are going to increase the mitigation allowed by the Crown.  The sentence, therefore, is one of 2 years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

No Authorities

A.G. -v- Bonnar (7^th August, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [20001/178}.

A.G. -v- Cooke & McClements (25^th March, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/70].