Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC174

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

9^th October 2003

The Attorney General

-v-

Patrick Philip Fitzsimmons

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 25^th July, 2003, following a guilty plea to:

Age:     43.

Details of Offence:

17.5 kilos of cannabis resin.  Street value £99,000 (wholesale between £71,000 and £86,000).  Imported in spare tyre of hire car.  Run performed for expenses and £1,000 which would have been used to clear general debt.  At the hearing, it was said that the run would also have been accepted by the organiser as cancelling an additional business debt.  Element of oppression.

Details of Mitigation:

Courier; long-term ill-health rendered him unemployable; illiterate; debt and oppression as above; diagnosed depressive; breach of English parole meant return to custody following completion of Jersey sentence; strong family man much missed by wife and young children.

Previous Convictions:

Lengthy record of dishonesty; two previous for cannabis trafficking offences (still on parole for the most recent).

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted (from 6½ year starting point).  Room for mercy in these circumstances.

C.E. Whelan, Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate D. Hopwood for Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant was found in possession of some 17.5 kilos of cannabis resin with a street value of £99,000 concealed in a car.  He was a courier and his reward was to be £1,000.  We have considered the question of the starting point having regard to the amount of drugs, but taken with our assessment of the nature and the scale of the defendant's involvement we think a starting point of 6½ years' is correct.

2.        Mr Hopwood has spoken powerfully on behalf of the defendant.  He has referred to a number of matters including the guilty plea, which he submits was of considerable value and we agree.  He has described to us in detail the circumstances in which this offence came to be committed.  In a nutshell, that the defendant had started a business with his best friend. The best friend had lent him £7,000 to put in as his share of the business.  Tragically the best friend subsequently committed suicide and the business folded.  More significantly, a well known criminal claimed that he was the ultimate provider of these funds and that he had to be repaid.  Threats were issued and, faced with this, the defendant in desperation, agreed to make this drug run.

3.        Mr Hopwood also referred to the personal circumstances of the defendant.  We were taken through his considerable medical problems as disclosed in the Psychological Report and the background report.  It is clear that this defendant lives in constant pain.  His various illnesses are such that he has considerable difficulty gaining employment and the prognosis in certain respects is not good.  As Mr Hopwood pointed out, this is something that he has found it very difficult to come to terms with, having been very active in his youth.   Furthermore, despite not being able always to gain employment he has shown a willingness to help others in that he has worked in a youth club in the past.

4.        Mr Hopwood also referred to the fact that the defendant at the time of this offence was on parole from an English prison sentence.  He has been recalled.  It follows that at the conclusion of any sentence which he serves here; he will have to serve a sentence of 9 months.  Mr Hopwood submitted, rightly in our view, that we should take this into account in assessing the totality which the defendant should serve.  We have also been shown letters from the children and the effect on the family has been drawn to our attention, although this is, of course, sadly a common situation.

5.        Having regard to the information which comes across very clearly from all the papers before us we are ultimately persuaded by Mr Hopwood that this defendant is a candidate for mercy.  Nevertheless, we think the Crown has taken all these factors fully into account, and in the circumstances we think that the correct sentence is that moved for by the Crown namely, 2½ years' imprisonment.  We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Campbell & Others [1995]JLR136.

Green -v- A.G. [2003]JCA125.

A.G. -v- McCarthy [2003]JRC107.