Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC051

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21^st April 2005

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Jeffrey Michael Carter

Bridgette Ann Allan

Gareth Paul Hume

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 4^th March, 2005.

 

 

Jeffrey Michael Carter

 

First Indictment

 

2 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. (Count 1:  diamorphine) (Count 2:  cocaine)

 

Age:     44.

 

Plea:    Counts 1 and 2 Guilty plea entered on 17^th December, 2004.

 

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

Carter - being involved in the importation of a controlled drug (diamorphine and cocaine).

Allan -   possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply (diamorphine and cocaine).

Hume - attempting to incite another to supply a controlled drug (diamorphine and cocaine).

Carter was approached by an acquaintance known as 'John Spencer' who said he needed to get to Jersey.  Carter agreed to assist.  In return Spencer paid for Carter and his family to spend a holiday in the Island over Easter weekend.  During the early hours of the 10^th April, 2004, Carter and his family drove with Spencer to Weymouth where Spencer boarded the ferry as a foot-passenger.  This was to be the end of carter's involvement (Counts 1 and 2).  Carter a classic courier.

Later that day an exchange of text messages and calls took place between Allan and the ultimate organiser of the consignment of drugs (with whom she had previously had a relationship).  The organiser had been let down and needed somewhere to put something for a day or two.  Allan suggested her garden shed and was offered "a few quid" for her trouble.  She was told not to touch the package.  Allan a classic 'warehouser' or minder.

The same day Spencer unexpectedly telephoned Carter and said there was a problem.  They met in St Helier and Carter was given Allan's telephone number.

The following day whilst Allan was at Gorey Carter delivered the drugs to Allan's daughter.  Following delivery of the drugs the organiser sent Allan a further text message which read "Don't touch that bridge and as much as you know it's a guys tools.".  On her return Allan put the package in the shed (Counts 5 and 6).

That evening a call was made to Allan's mobile from Hume's mobile.  At trial Allan gave evidence the call was made by a man who asked if he could collect his tools.  Later that evening Allan's address was raided by officers of the Drugs Squad.  Allan and her daughter were arrested.

Following her arrest Allan's mobile received two missed calls from Hume's mobile and a further text message which read "Its T's mate any chance of grabbing me tools now please?"

The following day whilst Allan was in police custody a further ten calls were made from Hume's mobile to Allan's mobile (Counts 7 and 8).  Hume a classic 'runner' or 'gofer'. 

Total weight of heroin recovered 1,480.08 (street value between £444,240 and £666,360). Total weight of cocaine recovered 970.04 g (street value £77,632).

Hume found guilty I relation to Counts 7 and 8 following trial.

Neither Spencer or the ultimate organiser had been traced.

 

Second Indictment

 

Hume was owed £500 by a female - the girlfriend of a mate.  He received a telephone call from a man who asked to meet him in a town bar.  He met the man in the bar and was given a cigarette packet which he believed contained his money.  The man left the bar.  Hume went to the toilets to count the money and discovered the packet contained a clear cylindrical packet.  He did not know what it was but thought it might be cocaine.  Hume went to see his girlfriend and told her he had not been given his money but had instead been given drugs.  His girlfriend took the drugs into her possession as he did not want to be walking the streets with drugs in his pocket.  (Count 2).  He then went in seach of the man who had given him the packet to get some answers and top arrange to give the packet back to him.  (Count 1).

Total weight of heroin recovered 27.5 g (street value between £8,505 and £12,757).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Assessed as low risk of re-offfending.  Remorse.  Indicated he was willing to give evidence as a witness for the Crown at the trial of Hume.

 

Previous Convictions:

Record containing no previous drug related offences.  Gap in records since October, 1989.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

 

Count 1:	9 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  14 years).
Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  (Starting point:  6 years).

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

 

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  16 years).
Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Bridgette Ann Allan

 

First Indictment

 

2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to Article 6 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 5:  diamorphine). (Count 6:  cocaine).

 

Age:     51.

 

Plea:    Counts 5 and 6 Guilty plea entered on 17^th December, 2004.

 

Details of Offence:

See Carter above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas. She gave evidence for the Crown at the trial of Hume.  Remorse.  Allan provided information to the police regarding identity of 'T' and was prepared to have this made known in open Court  Said in Court she would testify against ultimate organiser.  Significant health problems (breast cancer).

 

Previous Convictions:

Record including conviction for fraudulent conversion.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

 

Count 5:	9 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  14 years).
Count 6:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  (Starting point:  6 years).

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

 

Count 5:	3 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  14 years).
Count 6:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Gareth Paul Hume

 

First Indictment

 

2 counts of:

Attempting to incite another to commit an offence under Article 19 (4) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Count 7:  diamorphine). (Count 8:  cocaine).

 

Second Indictment

 

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:  diamorphine).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 2:  diamorphine).

 

 

Age:     23.

 

First Indictment

 

 

Plea:    Counts 7 and 8.  Convicted on a Not Guilty plea by the Inferior Number on 1^st March, 2005.

 

Second Indictment

 

Plea:    Counts 1 and 2.  Guilty plea entered on 17^th September, 2004.

 

 

Details of Offence:

 

See Carter above.

 

Hume owed £500 by a female - the girlfriend of a mate.  He received a telephone call from a man who asked to meet him in a town bar.  He met the man I the bar and was given a cigarette packet which he believed contained his money.  The man left the bar.  Hume went to the toilets to count the money and discovered the packet contained a clear cylindrical packet.  He did not know what it was but thought it might be cocaine.  Hume went to see his girlfriend and told her he had not been given his money but had instead been given drugs.  His girlfriend took the drugs into her possession as he did not want to be walking the streets with drugs in his pocket (Count 2).  He then went in search of the man who had given him the packet to get some answers and to arrange to give the packet back to him (Count 1).

Total weight of heroin recovered 27.5 g street value between £8,505 and £12,757).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Youth.  Previous good character.  Guilty pleas (Counts 1 and 2 - Second Indictment).  Remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Previously of good character.

 

Conclusions:

 

First Indictment

 

Count 7:	16 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  21 years).
Count 8:	10 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Second Indictment

 

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  9 years).
Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

First Indictment

 

 

Count 7:	11 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  16 years).
Count 8:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Second Indictment

 

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

 

A.J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for B.A. Allan.

D Steenson for J.M. Carter

M. Harris for G.P. Hume

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This case involves the importation and planned subsequent distribution of 1,480 grams of heroin and 970 grams of cocaine.  In Jersey terms this is a vast amount of Class A drugs, which if it had succeeded in getting onto the streets, would have caused great damage and suffering to the local community, and to the young people of our community in particular.

2.        It is accepted, however by the prosecution that none of these Defendants knew the exact quantity of drugs involved.  They were not the organisers, they were all cogs in the distribution network but, nevertheless, they each played a part.

3.        Carter drove the courier down to Weymouth.  On arrival in Jersey he was asked unexpectedly by the courier to take the drugs back from him and deliver them to Bridgette Allan's house, which is what he did.  He did this in return for a fee which seems to have involved the payment of his ferry fare and hotel bills for a holiday with his family.  The Crown has categorised him as a courier.

4.        Bridgette Allan was contacted by the organiser, Gary Gallagher, who was an old boyfriend of hers.  He said that he had been let down and he needed somewhere to put something for a day or two.  She agreed to help out by providing her shed.  He told her there might be a few quid in it for her trouble.

5.        Gareth Hume was to pick up the drugs from Bridgette Allan's house.  The Crown accepts that he was a 'runner' or 'gofer' as they call it - in other words he was to shift the drugs on down the line to the next person in the distribution network.  The Crown, therefore, does not suggest that he was going to benefit, to any material extent, from what he did, although, no doubt there would have been some modest reward.

6.        We have first to consider the starting point for each offender.  The quantity of drugs in this case means that we are outside the Rimmer guidelines which say that for 400 grams one takes a starting point of 14 years plus.  On a small point we wonder in fact whether that should be 12 years if one is to be consistent in dealing with people at the lowest end of an applicable bracket.

7.        The Crown in this case has suggested a starting point of 20 years for Allan and Carter, and 21 years for Hume to reflect the fact that he faces another indictment with a very unusual set of circumstances in relation to a heroin offence.

8.        We have come to the conclusion that the Crown's starting points are far too high.  They have placed too much weight on the mathematical calculations and have not stood back to see what is really involved in this case.

9.        The Crown in particular placed weight on the case of AG -v- Durkin and others [2004]JLR163 and referred to the fact that in that case, which involved a conspiracy to import a kilo of heroin, a starting point of 18 years had been taken.  But, of course, as Mr Belhomme accepted, that was incorrect.  The Crown suggested 18 years in that case but the Court had taken a starting point of 15 years.  Mr Belhomme accepted that the conclusions were based on that error initially, but even though the error had been realised, it did not alter the Crowns' view as to the starting point.

10.      In our judgment Durkin is of limited assistance.  In one sense it was less serious, as Mr Belhomme said, because it only involved a conspiracy.  In other words no drugs actually ever came to the Island.  On the other hand, it could be said that the involvement of the defendants in that case was more serious because they were the organisers. They were planning the whole importation, whereas here on the Crown's case, and as we accept, we are not dealing with any organisers.

11.      In our judgment sentences for drug offences do not increase exponentially with the amount of drugs in question.  Quantity is certainly important, because the damage done to the young people of Jersey increases with the amount of drugs which are brought in or supplied; and in the case of an organiser who knows exactly how much he is importing or supplying we think that quantity will be very significant.  If a person knowingly and for profit decides to deal in very large quantities he must expect to pay a very substantial price if he is caught.

12.      But in the case of someone who plays a minor part and is not even aware of the quantity, and perhaps even the nature of the drugs, there must be an element of tapering off as amounts increase if sentences are not to become unduly harsh for what the offender has actually done.  As Mr Steenson rather graphically put it in mitigation, there must be a levelling off of the curve, as the amount of drugs increases. 

13.      Each of the offenders faces different offences, either importation, or possession with intent to supply or attempting to incite a supply.  In our judgment, nothing turns on that.  We must consider the correct starting point and final sentence for what each defendant has admitted or been found to have done.

14.      So, taking the starting points and considering first the case of Carter, he is treated as a courier.  Nevertheless, for the reasons we have given, the amount in this case cannot lead in our judgment to a starting point of the order suggested by the Crown.  We have noted the case of Valler -v- A.G. [2002]JLR383.  In relation to the facts of that case, the amount of drugs here was much greater; but nevertheless, we think the correct starting point for Carter is 16 years.

15.      In relation to Hume, he was to take delivery of the drugs and pass them on along the chain.  The fact that he did not actually do so was no thanks to him; it was entirely due to the fact that the police intervened to arrest Bridgette Allan and seize the drugs.  Accordingly, we do not accept his counsel's point that there ought to be a reduction because he never, in fact, got to get hold of the drugs.  In our judgment the scale and nature of his involvement is on a par with that of Carter and therefore we take a starting point of 16 years.

16.      As to Bridgette Allan, she was in our judgment the least involved.  She was approached at the last moment by Gallagher when a problem arose.  The drugs were already in the Island.  She was approached by someone she trusted.  She did not think that she was dealing with drugs at that stage; it was only after they had been delivered that she suspected that they may be drugs because she was sent a text by Gallagher telling her not to touch them and that so far as she was concerned they could be regarded as a 'guy's tools'.  When she got home shortly after that and saw the package, which had been delivered in her absence, then she realised that they were drugs, although she did not know what type.  In our judgment, this is a fairly unusual set of circumstances and her involvement was less.  Nevertheless, we have to take account of the very large quantity of drugs.  In our judgment the correct starting point for her is one of 14 years.

17.      We are now going to consider the mitigation for each offender.  Taking first Carter, he has pleaded guilty.  He has two minor previous convictions, but they were a long time ago and did not involve drugs.  He has produced a number of references.  He is clearly a good family man.  He is extremely remorseful and the background report suggests that he is at low risk of re-offending.  He was willing to give evidence in the trial against Brooke Allan, although as it turns out it was not necessary, because she admitted to all that he could say, which was that he delivered the drugs to her.  We give credit for the fact that he was willing to give evidence in that case; but it is clearly not the same as being willing to give evidence against a drug organiser or disclosing full details of the people behind a drug importation of this nature. 

18.      Having regard to the mitigation put forward by counsel and all the mitigation which appears from the papers before us, we think that a deduction of 8 years is appropriate.  We note the Crown managed to get down from 20 years to 9 years, but we have some difficulty in following how that could be.  Carter, on Count 1, the sentence is 8 years' imprisonment; on Count 2, the sentence is 5 years' imprisonment concurrent, making a total of 8 years.

19.      Bridgette Allan, she pleaded guilty.  She was extremely co-operative.  She has one previous conviction for benefit fraud but no previous drug convictions.  We are quite satisfied she is extremely remorseful.  She has a history, as the records show, of being against drugs and we have no doubt that she would not knowingly have got involved in distributing heroin and we are pleased to note the efforts she is making in prison.  We have had a vast array of references which show that she is a good friend, someone who will help people, and she suffered ill health recently.

20.      She gave evidence in the trial against Hume.  Most significantly, she has indicated and stated through counsel that she would be willing to give evidence against Gallagher, who was the alleged organiser of this whole enterprise.  She has also, through her counsel, given the name of another person who was involved in the organisation of this, someone referred to as 'T', and she has acknowledged that in open court.  The Court has repeatedly said that where people involved in drug offences give information to the police in order to help the fight against drug dealing and then acknowledge that in open court, the Court will give them a very substantial discount, and that is what we propose to do in this case.  We think the Crown did not do so.  Therefore, in your case on Count 5 the sentence will be one of 3 years' imprisonment; and on Count 6, 3 years, concurrent, making 3 years in all.

21.      Gareth Hume, he does not have the mitigation which derives from a guilty plea in relation to the main indictment.  There is, of course, the second indictment with very unusual circumstances.  On the version which the Crown has chosen to accept and on which we must sentence, we do not consider that it adds a great deal.  He has no previous convictions, although there is the other indictment on this case.  He has a good work record; we have read the references and his letter.  We note his mother has come over to support him and we are pleased at that fact.

22.      The most significant factor in Hume's case, given that he has pleaded not guilty, is that he is only 23.  The Crown said it did not wish to impose a crushing sentence, but we can only view a sentence of 16 years as being just that.  Nevertheless, given the amount involved, his involvement and the plea of not guilty, we cannot avoid a lengthy sentence.  On count 1, 11 years' imprisonment; on Count 2, 5 years.  On the second indictment Count 1, 3 years'; count 2, 3 years' all of those concurrent making 11 years' imprisonment in all.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

AG -v- Durkin and others.

Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG {2001]JLR373

Valler -v- A.G. [2002]JLR383