Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC124

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

16^th July 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Grant Davis;

Jordan Lesley Jones

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 2^nd May, 2003, on guilty pleas, as follows:

Grant Davis

 

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 hydrochloride. Count 2: Cannabis resin.

 

Age:     26.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The defendants came to Jersey by aeroplane.  Between them they had concealed internally a total of 135.6 grams of cocaine.  In addition Davis imported 13.36 grams of cannabis resin.  The cocaine had a wholesale value of £8,730 and a street value of £10,846.  The street value of the cannabis found on Davis was £75 with a wholesale value of £54.  Jones stated that she had been approached by a man who asked her to bring the drugs to Jersey in exchange for payment of the sum of £1,000.  Jones, who was pregnant, could not fit all the packages into her rectum so Davis agreed to insert the remainder.  Both knew the drugs were cocaine.  The defendants wee caught "in flagrante delicto".  Initially both defendants were unco-operative but once faced with the prospect of internal examination, admitted that they were carrying drugs.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The importation was not made for personal gain.  He had taken a lesser role.  Ten years starting point was too high.  Insufficient weight given to mitigating factors.  Insufficient weight given to disparity of roles played by Davis and Jones.  Davis' involvement was unplanned, he imported a lesser amount and could have argued that he was not involved in Jones' importation.  Starting point should be nine years and Davis should receive full one third credit for guilty plea.

 

Previous Convictions:

2 previous convictions for drugs offences.

 

Conclusions:

The Crown took the view that this was a joint commercial importation and drew no distinction from the fact that Davis brought in a lesser amount than Jones.  Apart from the guilty plea there was no other mitigation.  They both put Jones' baby at considerable risk.  They had travelled as a couple in the hope that they would not be detected.  The Crown proposed a starting point of ten years and moved that the guilty plea merited but a discount of one year.

 

Count 1:	9 years' imprisonment (10 years' starting point).
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Confiscation Order for £167.96.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point: 9 years)
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent

Confiscation order made for £167.96.

 

Jordan Lesley Jones

 

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. Count 3:  Cocaine hydrochloride.

 

Age:     28.

 

Details of Offence:

See Grant Davis, above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Accepted starting point of ten years.  Jones was pregnant and in debt.  Unstable background.  Had borderline personality disorder.  Her sentence would mean that her child would be born in custody and she would also be separated from her seven-year-old child from a previous relationship.  Asked court to adopt a merciful approach.  Remorse.  Asked court to reduce conclusions by fifty per cent.

 

Previous Convictions:

Had previous convictions.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 3:

9 years' imprisonment (10 years' starting point).

Confiscation Order for £35.50.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 3:

6 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point: 10 years).

Confiscation order made for £35.50.

 

 

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

Advocate D. Hopwood for G Davis.

Advocate S.E. Fitz for J.L. Jones.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        For £1,000 which she intended to use to clear her ordinary debts, Jones agreed to do a drug run to Jersey.  Davis, her boyfriend, was going to come with her and just before they came it was found that she could not conceal all the drugs in her body.  Therefore, at the last moment and in order to help her and to minimise the risk, as he saw it, to their unborn baby, Davis agreed to conceal some of the drugs internally.

2.        The total involved was 135 grams of cocaine with a street value of some £10,846 and a wholesale value of some £8,730.  We must first consider the starting point.  The applicable bracket under the Rimmer guidelines is 10 -13 years for 100 to 250 grams.  The Crown has suggested a starting point of 10 years for both defendants.  Miss Fitz very realistically accepts that that cannot be criticised in respect of Jones and we agree with the Crown's starting point in respect of Jones.

3.        Mr Hopwood on the other hand suggests that in the case of Davis this is one of those exceptional cases where we should move outside the guidelines.  This was not a case where Davis was going to receive any reward, he was not involved in it in anyway, except on the spur of the moment, he decided to take part in order to help out his girlfriend.  We think that this was an exceptional case.  This was not the normal courier and we think a starting point of 9 years is correct for Davis. 

4.        We turn then to the mitigation for Jones.  She has pleaded guilty, although it was to a considerable extent inevitable.  She has some minor previous convictions, but no previous convictions for drugs.  She has a very unhappy background and we take that fully into account.  It is clear from the reports that she simply does not appreciate the consequences of her actions.  We have read carefully the references and letters with which we have been provided. 

5.        Powerful mitigation was put forward on her behalf in relation to her children.  She has a daughter Madison, who since her remand in custody, has been living with the father, whom she did not really know well before then, having lived with her mother until that time.  She is pregnant and is expecting a baby shortly.  That baby will, therefore, be born in prison and after 18 months will be removed from her.  Thus the consequences of a prison sentence will not only be harsh on her but rather more significantly, will be very harsh on the two children who will have to do without their mother for the whole of the period of imprisonment.

6.        We take all these matters into account and the other matters raised in the detailed reports which we have received and put forward by Mr Hopwood.   Three of the Jurats consider that a deduction of 3 years from the starting point would be appropriate; three Jurats on the other hand consider that there ought to be a deduction of 4 years.  I side with the latter group of Jurats.  Therefore, the sentence on Jones will be one of 6 years' imprisonment.

7.        Turning to Davis I have already referred to his last minute involvement.  He has pleaded guilty and Mr Hopwood urged that this was a plea of more value than allowed for by the Crown because he was only found in possession 40 grams.  It was entirely his admissions which enabled the Crown to bring a joint charge, charging him in respect of a total of 135 grams.  We agree with Mr Hopwood's submission, that this was not inevitable and, therefore, greater credit should be given for his guilty plea.

8.        On the other hand he has two previous drug convictions, albeit, only for possession.  He has a good employment record.  He too will not see the child who is to be born until the end of imprisonment.  We have read carefully the references and the letters and the detailed reports that we have received.  Although we think that slightly greater mitigation can be allowed for him as against Jones for the guilty plea, and for some of the other matters which appear from the papers that are before us, that is to an extent counter-balanced by the hardship on the children in relation to Jones.  All in all we think that a similar deduction should be allowed from the starting point for Davis.  Again three of the Jurats would, therefore, have concluded that the right sentence was 6 years; three would have concluded that 5 years was the right sentence.  I again side with the latter group.  Therefore the sentence on count 1 is 5 years' imprisonment; on count 2 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent making a total of 5 years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer & Ors. -v- A.G. [2001] JLR 373.