Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC029

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12^th February 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Ben Vipond

 

 

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

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey), Law, 1978: Count 1: MDMA
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey), Law, 1978: Count: 2: MDMA

 

[The Crown did not proceed with Count 2].

 

Age:     26.

 

Plea:   

 

Details of Offence:

 

On 27^th May 2003, at Merton Hotel, St Saviour, had possession with intent to supply Ecstasy - equivalent to 15,212 tablets with a street value of £152,110.  Wholesale value £91,266 - £121,688.  (Largest haul of ecstasy tablets in Jersey to date).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Minder of drugs.  Guilty Plea.  Assisted police.  Remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

1 offence against property (1997).  4 theft and kindred offences (1994-96).  1 Public disorder (1997).  1 Firearms/shotgun/offensive weapon (1999). 

No previous drug related convictions.

 

Conclusions:

18 years' starting point.

 

Count 1:

14 years' imprisonment

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Role of minder accepted by the Court.  Large amount of drugs therefore close to supply source.  16 years starting point.  Accepted mitigation of admission to police, guilty plea - valuable although inevitable.  Therefore reduced sentence by 4 years and then a further 1 year for residual youth and background information.  11 years and forfeiture of drugs.

Issue of Confiscation Order left over for separate hearing.

 

 

Count 1:

11 years' imprisonment

 

 

N.M. Santos Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant came to Jersey on or about 24^th May, 2003.  On the 27^th May, he was arrested and taken to his room at the Merton Hotel.  There he pointed to the bed underneath which the police found a package containing 15,212 ecstasy tablets.  This was the largest seizure of ecstasy in Jersey yet made.  Its street value is said to have been some £150,000.

2.        Vipond told the police that he did not import the drugs and that he was merely a minder.  He said that he was to be paid £500 together with re-imbursement of his expenses.  Vipond's explanation was that he had met a man in Exeter who had asked him whether he would be interested in coming to Jersey to sit on some packages.  He had done so and a man and a woman had apparently delivered the ecstasy to him at the hotel.

3.        The Crown Advocate has reminded us that ecstasy is an hallucinogenic stimulant which can have unfortunate and sometimes fatal effects and is a class A drug.  The quantity of ecstasy was very substantial, and the potential for harm to the community was almost immeasurable.  We accept Vipond's explanation that he was merely minding the drugs, but we remind ourselves that a minder can be as close to the source of supply or even closer than the courier who brings the drugs into the Island.

4.        The position is well put in Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey in this way:

"The notion that a minder invariably occupies some fixed lower position in the order of drugs criminality has become outmoded.  It is not apt to reflect the realities of a given case.  A minder can and perhaps usually does play a fundamental part in ensuring that dangerous drugs reach their intended market, namely the streets.  In a given case the position of the minder will depend on the amount of drugs involved and what inferences can properly be drawn from the surrounding circumstances as to the part he was playing in the overall supply of the drugs.  There may well be circumstances in which the position of the minder is one which justifies the conclusion that he is more seriously involved in the drugs trade than the courier." 

5.        In this case, the fact that Vipond was apparently asked to come to Jersey and was then entrusted with £150,000 worth of drugs indicates to the Court a closeness to the source of supply and a fairly deep involvement in drug trafficking activity. 

6.        Having given anxious consideration to the recommendations of the Crown Advocate and to the guideline case of Bonner [2001]JLR 626 we think that the appropriate starting point in this case is one of sixteen years' imprisonment.  There is little to be said in mitigation apart from the defendant's admissions to the police and his guilty plea.  We agree with defence counsel that the plea was a valuable plea even though the evidence against the defendant was strong.  We propose to make an allowance of four years for that mitigating factor and allow a further one year for the defendant's residual youth and other background mitigation including the fact he has no previous drugs convictions and that there is an element of remorse.

7.        Vipond, you are sentenced on the single count on the indictment to eleven years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities.

R. -v- Warren; R -v- Beeley (1996) 1 Cr. App. R. 120.

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: 4^th Schedule.

Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. [2001] JLR 626.

A.G. -v- Welsh (3^rd February, 2000); Jersey Unreported; [2000/21].

Welsh -v- A.G. (4^th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/72].

A.G. -v- Ashworth (25^th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/24].

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): pp. 114-117.

Campbell and Ors -v- A.G. [1995] JLR 136.

Butler (1993) 14 Cr. App.R(S) 537.