Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC123

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

16^th July 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew James

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 2^nd May, 2003, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

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)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999. Count1: Cannabis resin.

 

 

Age:     34.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The defendant arrived in Jersey on the fast ferry from Weymouth by motor car.  He was stopped by Customs and claimed that he had come to Jersey to visit his father who was unwell.  His vehicle was searched and a total of 10,220.64 grams of cannabis was found concealed in the vehicle.  The defendant alleged that he had brought the drugs into Jersey and would be paid £2,000.  The drugs had a wholesale value of £40,000 and a street value of £57,600.  It later transpired that the defendant's father was not ill nor was he in Jersey and that both parents were in Liverpool.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The defence accepted that the six years starting point moved for by the Crown was correct but submitted that a greater discount than that given by the Crown was appropriate because of the defendant's plea.  The defendant alleged that he had been targeted by dealers who knew he had debts and the fact that he has been on remand in custody for five months.  The defence submitted that this delay should be taken into account.

 

Previous Convictions:

One - not drug related.

 

Conclusions:

4 years' imprisonment (6 years' starting point).

The defendant was a courier who was to be paid to bring the drugs to Jersey.  This was a well organised importation.  Apart from the guilty plea, the Crown submitted that there was very little by way of mitigation.  Because of the guilty plea the Crown submitted that the defendant was entitled to the full one third discount.

Confiscation Order for £271.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

2½ years' imprisonment.

The court accepted the starting point of six years.  The Court took the view that because of the defendant's guilty plea and the circumstances of the offence he should be entitled to a greater discount than that proposed by the Crown.

Confiscation Order for £271 made.

 

D.E. Le Cornu Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D.M. Cadin for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You imported 10.2 kilos of cannabis resin concealed in a hire car in exchange for a fee of £2,000.  Luckily for Jersey you were caught at Elizabeth Harbour.  We must consider first the starting point and there is no dispute by your advocate that 6 years is the correct starting point for this amount of cannabis resin in accordance with the Campbell (1995) JLR 136 guidelines.

2.        In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea, the fact that you have no previous convictions other than a minor one, we treat you as a man of good character, in particular you have no previous drug convictions.  We take into account the circumstances of the offence.  It appears that you were in debt to a finance company and you were approached by dealers and succumbed to the temptation of earning easy money to clear your debts.  This was not a case of someone who was in debt to dealers, nevertheless, it offers no excuse for what you did.

3.        Your arrest and the term of imprisonment you are going to suffer will cause hardship for your daughter and other members of your family.  We have been handed a number of references and these show, like the Social Enquiry Report, that this was really wholly out of character.

4.        We have taken account of all the matters we have referred to and of the other mitigation which appears from the papers.  The Crown moved for a sentence of 4 years, having agreed that you should be given a full one-third for your guilty plea.  It seems to us therefore that they cannot have allowed any mitigation for all the other factors to which we have referred.  Clearly you are entitled to further mitigation for those.

5.        Two of the Jurats think that the position would have been adequately reflected by a 3 year sentence, but the majority think that a further discount should be given for all the mitigation to which we have referred.  The sentence of the Court is, therefore, 2½ years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): pp.48, 77, 91.

A.G. -v- Foster [2003] JRC033.

Campbell and ors -v- AG (1995) JLR 136.