Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JCA128

COURT OF APPEAL

                                                                 18^th July, 2003.

John Stanley Michael HUNT

-v-

The Attorney General

Application for leave to appeal against a total sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, passed on 3rd April, 2003, by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Appellant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 24th January, 2003, on a guilty plea to:

The application for leave to appeal placed directly before the plenary Court, without first being submitted to a Single Judge for consideration and determination.

Advocate J.C. Gollop for the Appellant;

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

JUDGMENT

BELOFF JA:

1.        This is the judgment of the Court in the application of John Stanley Michael Hunt.

2.        On 3rd April 2003 the Superior Number of the Royal Court ("the Royal Court") sentenced the Applicant, Mr Hunt to seven years imprisonment in relation to an indictment containing two 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.

3.        (1) In respect of count 1 which concerned the importation of in excess of 21 kilos of cannabis resin, Mr Hunt was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

  (2) In relation to count 2 which involved 82.61 grams of cocaine, Mr Hunt was sentenced concurrently to seven years' imprisonment.

4.        The facts in outline are these.  Mr Hunt arrived in Jersey on 9th November 2002 on a car ferry accompanied by his 10 year old son.  He denied that there were any prohibited items in the car.  He eventually admitted to some "puff" or cannabis resin.  Various packages were found well hidden within his car - that is to say some 21 kg of cannabis resin with a street value of £126,720, and a wholesale value of £88,000.  Cocaine was also found, a quantity of 82.6 kg with a purity of 36-40%, with a street value of £6,608 and wholesale value of approximately £5,286.  Mr Hunt admitted that he was carrying cannabis into Jersey, that he was paid £500 for his pains and that he had a drug debt.  He denied that he knew that cocaine was there.  But, as the Royal Court rightly said by reference to the guideline case of Campbell v The Attorney General [1995] JLR 136:  "his ignorance as to the precise nature of the illegal drug imported is immaterial".

5.        Application for leave to appeal against that sentence is based on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.  The essence of the case advanced on Mr Hunt's behalf is that, while the starting point of 11 years was correct, the mitigation allowed was inadequate.

6.        The Royal Court said this before passing sentence:

 "We have to say that there is much mitigation in the case.  Hunt has pleaded guilty; this is his first offence; he was clearly a mule - that is accepted by the prosecution; and he was under pressure from his dealer who had apparently threatened to tell his estranged wife, with whom he hoped to be reunited, that he was taking cocaine.  His personal situation provides a reason why he brought his son with him and we are prepared to accept the child was not there as cover for this most serious crime.  Mr James has given us several letters which we have read most carefully and a useful psychiatric report from Dr Cox.  In his Report Dr Cox says: 'The smooth running of his life is not only however hampered by a mood disorder but also by the constellation of personality traits described above which may have some relevance in leading him to agree to commit the index offences; these are his marked tendency toward self-doubt combined with his ready acquiescence towards those he sees in positions of authority or power (in this case the drug dealer) combined with an ingenuousness which is unusual for a man of 35 years of age.  In other words he is easily lead by a person in authority who has gained his confidence and will then be typically avoidant of any consideration of negative consequences.  His obsessional tendency to excessive conscientiousness would under normal circumstances make it very unlikely that John Hunt would offend.'  We find the particular circumstance of this case very unusual, and in those circumstances we are going to reduce the conclusions of the Crown slightly".

7.        It is asserted on Mr Hunt's behalf that since the Crown moved for a starting point of 12 years, and allowed for four years for available mitigation, arriving accordingly at a sentence of eight years imprisonment, the Crown's reduction went essentially to the starting point, and only little if at all, to the mitigation, although mitigation of four years vis à vis eleven years is proportionately higher than of four years vis à vis twelve years.  The last sentence we have quoted above has been subjected to some forensic analysis.  Suffice it to say that we do not believe that the experienced sentencing court could have confused the separate exercise of identifying a starting point from that of assessing the mitigation.

8.        Advocate Gollop renews before this Court the submissions that Advocate James made before the Royal Court in respect of that mitigation.  He succinctly draws attention to the salient features of the case:

(i)        Mr Hunt was a first time offender;

(ii)       Mr Hunt was a man of previously good character;

(iii)      Mr Hunt had a fairly limited role simply as a mule;

(iv)      Mr Hunt had character traits which made him susceptible to pressure from the dealer;

(v)       Mr Hunt had the condition of manic depression which made him vulnerable to addiction and liable to act irrationally.

9.        All these matters, as we have noted, were accepted by the Royal Court.  So too was the plea of guilty - although it appears to us, as the Crown suggested, that the  likelihood of a finding of guilt, had the matter been contested, was, on the undisputed facts, considerable.  It is also noteworthy that the Royal Court appeared to place no emphasis on the assertion by the Crown that Mr Hunt was uncooperative during the interview, and indeed they appear to have accepted that in his responses he was reflecting advice from the duty advocate.  Likewise the Royal Court did not suggest that it took the view that Mr Hunt's son was used pre-meditatively as a cover for the offence; indeed they expressly attributed a different reason for his son's presence.

10.      In short there was no mitigating factor urged on the Royal Court which the Royal Court appeared not to have had in mind; no construction of events upon which they did not accept Mr Hunt's version.

11.      The only additional piece of mitigation is a recent letter from Hunt's wife, in which his mental problems and the effects these have had on his wife and child are fully and clearly described.

12.      All cases axiomatically differ from each other in detail and  we see no reason to quarrel with the Royal Court's description of this case as being "very unusual".  Nonetheless we do not see that it necessarily follows from that premise that the particular discount allowed for mitigation was insufficient.  We are properly reminded that we must resist any temptation to tinker with a sentence of the Royal Court.  We can, in any event, by reference to all the available mitigation, find no reason to interfere with the sentence handed down which it appears to us, in any event, to be wholly appropriate.  Mr Gollop has said all that could be said on his client's behalf: but the application for leave is dismissed.  We give the appropriate direction under Article 35(4)(b).

Authorities.

Campbell & Ors-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

Rimmer & Ors-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

Valler-v-AG [2002] JLR 383.