[2004]JRC218
royal court
(Samedi Division)
10th December 2004
Before: |
F.C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner and Jurats Le Breton and Morgan |
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES (JERSEY) LAW, 1988, AS AMENDED
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 16C(1) OF THE 1988 LAW SEEKING FORFEITURE OF THE PROCEEDS OF DRUG TRFFICKING IN RESPECT OF
LEE THOMAS JOHN BUCKLEY AND PETER MUNRO
Representation by Her Majesty's Attorney, applying for an Order under Article 16C(1) of the said Law to order forfeiture of the said proceeds and under Article 16G(1) to authorise the Finance and Economics Committee to dispose thereof.
Advocate A.J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. Juste for Lee Thomas John Buckley,
convened by Order of the Court, dated 16th January, 2004.
Peter Munro, given leave to intervene by the Court
of 21st April, 2004, on his behalf.
judgment
the COMMISSIONER:
1. This is an application by the Attorney General made pursuant to Article 16C(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law, 1988 whereby he seeks to forfeit the sum of £8,980 seized by Customs Officers on Wednesday 2nd July, 2003, at Postal headquarters, Rue des Pres, St. Saviour, which had been posted by Lee Thomas John Buckley.
2. The factual background is as follows. Four postal packets were intercepted at the registered mail sorting area of Postal Headquarters. The consignors name on each pack was Lee Thomas John Buckley whose address was given as "Lee Ross", Rue des Canons, Mont à l'Abbé, St. Helier. Buckley's name was recognised. He is a convicted drug dealer who had been sentenced to a total of nine years' imprisonment for possession and possession with intent to supply heroin in 2000. Although serving the sentence at La Moye (and his record is very bad) he participated in a day release scheme. He told us that he had what is called 'enhanced status' and was able to work because of that on a building site for his father where he earned some £250 per week which was paid to him in cash.
3. Of the four packets, one was addressed to Michelle Jackson of 85 Blackacre Road, Halewood, Liverpool, L26 NUU, and that packet contained £2,500. The second packet, also addressed to Michelle Jackson, contained £1,980. These two packets were posted at 9.30 a.m. at Millbrook Post Office. The third packet was addressed to Janet Jago, 17 Elworthy Avenue, Halewood, Liverpool, L26 7AA. It contained £2,500 in cash. The fourth, also addressed to Janet Jago at the same address, contained £2,000 in cash. These two packets were posted on 1st July 2003 at 3.30 p.m. at Maufant Post Office. The four packets contained in total £8,980.
4. There was an agreed statement of facts but we will deal with the evidence as we heard it in Court. We heard from Customs Officer Luke Goddard, the Senior Officer with the Customs and Excise Department. He it was who first interviewed Buckley in the visitor's room of H.M.P. La Moye. Buckley was shown photocopies of the four letter packets and in the course of a caution interview, Buckley said that he had posted the money for another person whom he declined to name. He said that that person would probably contact Customs on the following day. He emphatically denied that the money was the proceeds of drug trafficking. On 4th July, a Mr Paul Munro contacted Customs Officers to claim the money as his own. Munro is also an inmate of La Moye Prison, having been sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for conspiracy to import drugs on 8th May, 2000.
5. Customs and Excise Officer Stuart Nimmo had carried out the inspection of the four postal packets when they were intercepted. He it was who interviewed Mr Munro and his recorded interview reads as follows (It is a cautioned interview and when it was concluded Munro endorsed the entries as being accurate. The interview was conducted on Monday 7th July, 2003, at 12.00 hours):
"Paul Munro: £8,980 is my money. There should be £10,000.
Officer Nimmo: Why?
Paul Munro: Me and Lee wanted to buy a business, its two vans etc, Lee was going to give me £200 a week.
Officer Nimmo: Where was the business?
Paul Munro: London Stone, it's a marble business.
Officer Nimmo: When did you discuss this business venture?
Paul Munro: 6 weeks ago, it's a Jersey based firm.
Officer Nimmo: Where did you get the money from, the £10,000?
Paul Munro: I had a property which was sold and the police seized the cash as part of their investigation, which I got back eventually, which was about £30,000 each between me and my wife, she also got £30,000.
Officer Nimmo: When did you give Lee BUCKLEY the cash?
Paul Munro: About four weeks ago.
Officer Nimmo: Where did it actually come from?
Paul Munro: I took £10,000 to buy a car and help out family members in cash as I couldn't get Visa cards etc.
Officer Nimmo: When was £10,000 taken out?
Paul Munro: In August I took the money out on 15/08 and 26/08. (Bank statement provided by MUNRO which I now produce as SJN5)
(I would just add here that the date was 2002, 11 months earlier.)
Officer Nimmo: Did you give it to Lee straight away?
Paul Munro: No.
Officer Nimmo: Where has the money been kept since August 2002?
Paul Munro: In my locker at H.M.P, until I got released five weeks ago.
Officer Nimmo: Did you get to know Lee BUCKLEY well in prison?
Paul Munro: Yes, he was a good mate until now. Lee spent £1,000 on a chain for his girlfriend. I wanted it back to get a car from an auction in Liverpool or Scotland.
Officer Nimmo: When was the last time you spoke to Lee?
Paul Munro: On Thursday he phoned me to let me know the money was seized. Lee said he'd sent it to some friends in Liverpool who would pass it on to his friends who would sort out a car.
Officer Nimmo: Where are you currently working?
Paul Munro: Bremner, carpenters, learning a trade.
Officer Nimmo: How long have you been there?
Paul Munro: A year now.
Officer Nimmo: What are your current wages?
Paul Munro: £300 a week.
Officer Nimmo: How are you paid?
Paul Munro: Cash.
Officer Nimmo: do you have any bank accounts?
Paul Munro: Just Lloyds TSB, no one else will give me one."
6. Mr Nimmo disclosed to us the Lloyds TSB Bank statement for Mr Munro, showing that when there was only a balance of £1.62 in the account on the 21st March 2002, he received, legitimately, £29,107.84 from the proceeds on the sale of property.
7. We then heard from Merseyside police officers. The first of these was Police Constable Robert Atherton. It will be recalled that of the four postal packages, two were to be sent to Janet Jago of 17 Elworthy Road, Halewood, Liverpool and the others to Michelle Jackson of 85 Blackacre Road, Halewood, Liverpool. The Police Constable told us that David Jago had been seen entering and leaving 85 Blackacre Road on a daily basis and cars owned or driven by him were seen parked outside. When David Jago was asked for his address he gave it as 17 Elworthy Avenue, which of course is where his sister lives and he was seen to enter and leave that address on several occasions. Police Constable Neil Forsythe had seen many vehicles outside 85 Blackacre Road when both he and PC Atherton were patrolling by reason of information given by the Crimestoppers Information Line. One of the cars outside, and often seen outside, was that of David Jago. It was a silver Mercedes. There had been much information from Crimestoppers about suspected drug dealing at that address concerning David Jago. On many occasions a black BMW belonging presumably to Mr David Jago had been seen parked on Blackacre Road over six or seven months and this on some twenty occasions. The Police Constable had seen David Jago driving other vehicles; a silver Land Rover for example. It was clear from the evidence of DC Paul Heaney, who carried out police checks, that Janet Jago and David Jago were brother and sister. All in all, the evidence of these police officers was to the effect that Michelle Jackson, to whose house the money had been sent by Lee Buckley was a property which was apparently used for drug dealing purposes. Janet Jago has a criminal record for benefit fraud. Michelle Jackson was one of her friends and it was to her that Janet Jago suggested that part of the money be sent.
8. Detective Inspector Barry Faudemer, who has served in the States of Jersey Police since 1979 and is a now a Detective Inspector attached to the joint Police, Customs, Financial Crimes Unit, told us that the £8,980 was seized separately in the four packets and in a mixture of Jersey and English denominations. £800 of the overall total was in the form of £50 notes, £6,220 consisted of £20 notes, with £1,900 in £10 notes. The remaining £60 was comprised of £5 notes. Inspector Faudemer explained that, in his experience, drug dealers face problems. He told us that, because of the strict financial regulations in Jersey, it is very difficult for drug dealers to deposit funds and this volume of cash was highly suspicious without a plausible explanation. When one sends money to a relative or friend, it is customarily sent by way of Postal Order or Money Order and the very fact that cash was used aroused the suspicion of the Police Force. If the money is sent to an address which is apparently is being used by drug dealers, then it becomes doubly suspicious. It is clear to us from his evidence that Detective Inspector Faudemer's suspicions were aroused by the amount of cash being sent, by the high denominations of the cash and by the address to which it was being sent. Obviously, he said, if there were a creditable explanation that would be acceptable. And of course, as Miss Juste has pointed out, only cash was available to Buckley at that time.
9. Advocate Juste called Mr Buckley. He was perfectly frank about his prison record. On 1st July, 2003, he was out of prison on an enhanced status. This was of course temporary release but he was drug free and he had passed all the drug tests. He had been 18 months in this enhanced status. He had spent 3 months working with his father's building company on various sites. He told us that he wanted to purchase a business called London Stone from a Mr Coles, who also gave evidence before us. He had met Mr Coles on one of his temporary release dates in the Exeter pub. He knew that Mr Coles had a conviction before the Royal Court on 6th October 2003 for possessing a controlled drug, cocaine, but it must be stated that Mr Coles only received a Community Service Order of 240 hours for this offence when he was sentenced by the Superior Number, on 3rd December 2003. Buckley then spoke to Munro at the prison and in one of Munro's lockers at the prison - the locker has a code - there were sufficient funds for Mr Buckley to purchase London Stone. The money had presumably been there for some considerable time. Mr Munro gave him the money as a loan, which was to be repaid at a rate of £200 per week. He was given the £10,000 on absolute trust. There was no receipt. He decided not to purchase the business on advice from his father, who told him that with a criminal record it would not be possible for him to act as a director in Jersey. The company Jersey Stone had its marble cut by the Jersey Monumental Company, otherwise it would have cost him some £6,000 to purchase the necessary machinery. There were five or six staff and he felt that if he could have raised the money, he would have taken the company.
10. At that point, having obtained the loan, Mr Buckley yielded to temptation. It was apparently his present girlfriend's 21st birthday and he wanted to give her a substantial present. He purchased a pendant for £915. Janet Jago was an ex-girlfriend whom he had known in 1988 when he was about 21. He spoke to her and she gave the name of Michelle Jackson, a friend, because she did not want to take all the money herself.
11. Mr Munro wanted to buy a car and it was decided to buy Mr Munro a car at auction in Liverpool and it was further decided that the money would be sent for that purpose through the post (less of course the £915 which had been spent to buy the pendant). Mr Buckley explained that the money was sent from two different post offices because that morning he was asked to get sandwiches for the staff and arranged the first tranche at Millbrook Post Office near where he was working. The sub-postmistress took some time so he only managed to send part of the money. The second tranche was sent from Maufant, simply because he was working there later and he arranged with one of his mates working with him to take him round to the Post Office, then to take him into town and from there of course he found his way back to the prison. When he was at the Maufant Post Office with the two packages addressed to Janet Jago, apparently (from the agreed statement of facts), Buckley said that the cash was needed by his girlfriend the following day. It was exactly that that he had told the sub-postmistress at Millbrook. The counter assistant told him that Customs would probably check the cash going out and to that he replied "No Problem". He had inadvertently left a card on the counter at the post office and it had the names and full postal addresses of Janet Jago, Michelle Jackson and one Leonard Jago. Buckley repeated that he had no idea that Janet Jago, whom he had met for two months when he stayed in Liverpool, had a brother and he had never met any of her family.
12. On cross-examination Mr Buckley told Crown Advocate Belhomme that he seriously intended to buy London Stone, although he had no experience of marble fittings. He had given no receipt for the £10,000, there was no documentation, no interest was specified, nor a rate or a date on which it would be paid back. He would merely pay back £200 a week. He agreed that Mr Munro was very trusting but he had only told Mr Coles that "he may have had £10,000 to invest". He knew that he would need to borrow the money but his father advised against it. It was perhaps fortunate that Mr Munro had kept £10,000 in his locker at the prison. He did not tell Mr Munro that he had spent £915 on jewellery for his girlfriend and he had sent the money on his own initiative. It was Janet Jago who had suggested that part of the money should go to Michelle Jackson. With hindsight, of course, he agreed that it would have been easier to have given the money back to Munro. The transaction at Millbrook had taken some time and in fact it had taken too long for him to post the whole amount. Because he was working part of the day at Maufant, his work mate waited for him while he went into the Maufant Post Office. He agreed that he had left the card on the counter and that it had the addresses of Michelle Jackson, Janet Jago and a gentleman called Leonard Jago at a different address from the other two.
13. It may appear a little strange to us, listening to his story, that he told the Millbrook Post Office assistant that the money would be sent to his girlfriend (that of course was not true) and that she needed it by the following day. It was when he posted the money to a different address at Maufant Post Office that he told the same story. He emphatically denied that the money was to be used for, or was connected with any form of, drug dealing.
14. We heard from Mr Coles at an adjourned hearing this morning. He told us of the expanding growth of his company, which was now called Aztec Stone (he had changed the name because of the bad publicity over his trial) and how he had thought to sell London Stone at the time because he feared a prison sentence and to secure the employment of his skilled employees. However, it came as a surprise to us that to hear Mr Coles say that he had met Mr Buckley with Mr Munro in the Exeter pub. Mr Buckley gave us the impression that he had discussed the matter alone with Mr Coles and had spoken to Munro about it later. That may be a confusion of fact, but it is clear that no investigations were made and the valuation was jotted down on a piece of paper by Mr Coles. There was no attempt to look at the business, either on site or at an accountant's office.
15. We are satisfied that the arguments put forward by the Attorney General are convincing, and they certainly convince this Court, on the balance of probabilities, that these funds were the proceeds of drug trafficking or intended for use in that connection. We find the explanation given us to be wholly incredible. We are therefore satisfied to the civil standard that this money does directly, or indirectly represent the proceeds of, or was intended for use in, drug trafficking and we so hold. We furthermore make the order as requested, namely that these monies be forfeited and we authorise the Finance and Economics Committee to dispose of the monies and the accrued interest in such manner as the Committee may direct.
Discussion on costs followed.
16. I will make the order on the standard basis against both Buckley and Munro jointly and severally.
Authorities
Re Peacock, Roberts and Lakeman (29th May 2002) Jersey Unreported [2002/109]