Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC213

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

6^th December, 2004

The Attorney General

-v-

Sandra Pauline Kelly

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 22^nd October, 2004, following a guilty plea, entered on 24^th September, 2004.

Age:     28.

Details of Offence:

The offence came to light on 14^th July, 2004, when an individual attended at Police Headquarters to make a complaint.  Earlier that evening, he had received a text message from a friend who he only knew as "Sandra".  The person in question was Kelly and she appeared anxious to find out whether his girlfriend had arranged for her mail to be re-directed.  His girlfriend had previously been the tenant of the accommodation which was now occupied by Kelly.  At Kelly's insistence, arrangements were made for them to meet.  Kelly explained to him that she had used his girlfriend's name to have a package sent to Kelly's address.  Unbeknown to Kelly, the former tenant had made arrangements for her mail to be held by the Post Office pending her return from holiday abroad.  Kelly said that the package contained a compact disc case inside of which was concealed an ounce of cocaine.  He said Kelly asked whether he would provide her with some identification in the name of his girlfriend so that she could collect the package from the Post Office but he refused.  This was denied by Kelly.  Customs Officers subsequently attended at Postal Headquarters and examined a package addressed to the former tenant.  They discovered a compact disc case wrapped in clear plastic film.  The case contained twenty-eight individual clear plastic bags containing 22.10 grams of cocaine with a street value of £2,240.

The Crown regarded the use of an innocent person's name as the addressee for the package as an aggravating feature.

Details of Mitigation:

Kelly had pleaded guilty to the offence at an early stage.  Several references were before the Court.  Residual youth was claimed as a mitigating factor as was the hardship caused by Kelly being away from her eight year old son although he was cared for by her family in Ireland.  She had no relevant previous convictions and was remorseful.  Kelly claimed that she had borrowed £400.00 to return home from Thailand after an unpleasant incident there.  She borrowed the money from the person in England who ultimately became her accomplice.  Kelly said she was asked to supply an address.  She gave the home of the former tenant knowing that she was away and for that reason thought that she would not get into trouble.  Kelly's claim that she did not know the package contained drugs was viewed cynically by the Court.

Conclusions:

4½ years' imprisonment.  (8 years' starting point).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

A.D. Robinson, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were concerned in the importation of 22 grams of 18% by weight cocaine.  You arranged for this importation to be posted to your flat although addressed to the former tenant.

2.        When you were first interviewed you made no comment to the police, but you have now given an explanation and the Crown have accepted that explanation namely that you had to come back from Thailand as a matter of urgency as a result of an incident, that you borrowed money from someone - some £400,- and that person then, you say, harassed, threatened and intimidated you into providing an address to which these drugs were to be sent.

3.        The starting point for this quantity (10 - 50 grams) is between 8 and 10 years. The Crown has suggested 8 years and we agree that that is the correct starting point.

4.        In mitigation, we take into account your guilty plea, - you were not forthcoming at the very first interview but you did plead guilty not long thereafter.  We take into account that you have no previous drugs convictions; only some minor unrelated convictions.  We have read carefully the background report and the psychological report and have taken account of all the matters that they mention.  We have also read all the references including those handed in this morning.  They show that there is a good side to you and that you have the support of your family and friends who are here today.  We have also read your letter of remorse.

5.        We have heard of the efforts you have been making in prison by trying to make the best of things and we commend you for that and we hope very much that you will continue with it.  We also, of course, have taken account of the effect on the relationship with your son which a prison sentence will have, but sadly this is the inevitable consequence of committing offences of this nature.

6.        In our judgment the Crown has allowed for all these factors and therefore the sentence is one of 4½ years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp.19-21; 37-40.

Campbell & Ors -v- A.G. [1995]JLR136.

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