Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC181

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th December 2005

Before     :

Sir Richard Tucker, Commissioner, and Jurats Le Breton, Georgelin, Allo, King, Morgan and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher Thomas Morgan

Paul Thomas Graham

James Patrick McCarron

Steven James Pereira

John Michael Beamer.

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, on convictions on the following:

Christopher Thomas Morgan

 

2 counts of:

Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Cannabis).  (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  42.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Cannabis had been imported from the United Kingdom.  The indictment was split into two separate conspiracies to reflect two substantial amounts of cannabis brought into the Island for onward sale. The first conspiracy relates to 16 kilos of cannabis found in some woodland.  This was to be sold by Pereira and Beamer, Jersey drug dealers.  Pereira and Beamer had collected monies owed to them by local drugs users to pay for the cannabis in advance of Graham's arrival in the Island.

The second conspiracy relates to drugs monies in the sum of £7,000 which had been raised by McCarron, another Jersey drug dealer, for the purchase of cannabis.  Morgan and Graham were named on both counts because they were agents of the UK suppliers who collected   and received money from the Jersey dealers.  Graham travelled to Jersey to collect monies owed, once he had collected them he passed them to Morgan who was responsible for onward transmission to the UK.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.

Previous Convictions:

Historic convictions for offences of dishonesty.  No convictions for drugs offences.

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	6 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  7 years).
Count 2:	1 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment. (Starting point:  7 years).
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Paul Thomas Graham

 

2 counts of:

Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Cannabis).  (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  31.

Plea: Guilty plea four days before trail.

Details of Offence:

See Morgan above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, residual youth.

Previous Convictions:

Minor previous convictions for possession of Class A and Class B drugs.

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	7 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  8 years).
Count 2:	1 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 After mitigation for guilty plea, residual youth and mental health difficulties 4 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment. (Starting point:  8 years).
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

James Patrick McCarron

 

1 count of:

Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Cannabis).  (Count 2).

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Morgan above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea at first opportunity.

Previous Convictions:

No relevant previous convictions.

Conclusions:

 

Count 2:

2½ years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 2:

180 hours' Community Service Order and 12 months' Probation Order.

 

Steven James Pereira

 

1 count of:

Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Cannabis).  (Count 1).

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

See Morgan above.

Details of Mitigation:

Pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.  Led the police to the stash of drugs.  Youth and references provided.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

4 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  7 years).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:

3 years' imprisonment. (Starting point:  7 years).

 

John Michael Beamer

 

1 count of:

Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Cannabis).  (Count 1).

Age:  21

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Morgan above.

Details of Mitigation:

Youth.

Previous Convictions:

One serious previous conviction for aiding and abetting, a kidnapping, and grave and criminal assault which involved a drugs debt.

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

5½ years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  7 years).

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:

3½ years' imprisonment. (Starting point:  7 years).

 

S. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Cadin for C.T. Morgan.

Advocate M. Preston for P.T. Graham.

Advocate N.S. Benest for S.J. Pereira.

Advocate R. Juste for J. P. Beamer.

Advocate J. Lawrence for J. McCarron.

JUDGMENT

 

THE COMMISSONER:

1.        The Court will sentence, taking into account two general principles which it wishes to be made known.  First - drug dealers in this Island will be dealt with severely.  The Court intends by its sentences to punish those who have offended and also to deter others who may be attempted to offend.  Second - those who plead guilty to offences can expect to receive a significant discount to their sentences, possibly up to one-third where appropriate.

2.        There are five defendants in this case four of whom pleaded guilty and the fifth having been convicted.  The offences upon which they have to be sentenced are those set out in the two counts of the indictment, namely, conspiracy to supply a controlled drug, cannabis resin.  The amounts involved are in count 1, at least sixteen kilograms, and in count 2, two kilograms.

3.        The defendants Morgan and Graham are concerned in both counts.  Pereira and Beamer only in count 1, and McCarron only in count 2.

4.        The Court has considered the cases of each defendant separately.  All members of the Court have read the Social Enquiry Reports, the testimonials and in Graham's case a medical report.  In addition we have listened to submissions made by and on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of each of the defendants and the Court wishes to pay tribute to the eloquence and standards of advocacy of all those appearing before us.

5.        Whereas in two cases pleas of guilty were entered on a particular basis of fact, the Court will in general sentence on that basis with the reservations that it makes no finding in Morgan's case as to his intention in relation to the amount of money which he held.  Individual sentences have been determined according to the Court's views as to the degree and seriousness of the particular defendant's involvement in the conspiracies.  The Court has been reminded of the decision in Campbell and Others 1995 JLR 136, concerning levels of sentencing for supply of Class B drugs.  The starting point for amounts of between 10 and 30 kilograms, i.e. in count 1 is 6 to 10 years. 

6.        We now turn to deal with the individual defendants.  Christopher Morgan is aged 40.  He has old but unrelated convictions which we disregard.  They were not drug related.  We are prepared to regard him as a man of previous good character.  His advocate, Advocate Cadin, has expressed concerns about his forthcoming trial and its possible influence on the Court.  I have already made it plain that the fact that he faces a further trial is quite irrelevant and is completely disregarded by this Court.  Morgan has pleaded guilty, and as I say the Court has regard to that and will reflect it in the sentence.  The Social Enquiry Report which we all have read suggests that a consideration might be given to a community sentence.  That is to say a non-custodial penalty.  We regret we cannot agree in this case.  We have read many testimonials which show a different side to your character Mr Morgan.  Why you should become involved in this and for what reason and for what purpose and for what reward is a complete mystery, as to which we have not been informed.  Advocate Cadin submits that you should be sentenced on the basis of 'being knowingly concerned', and that the principles in Campbell ought not to be applied.  We do not agree.  What you were charged with and what you pleaded guilty to was conspiracy to supply.  You were entrusted with the safe keeping of a substantial sum of drugs money and you were a key participant.  The Court regards the starting point in your case as 7 years' imprisonment.  Some mitigation is available; we bear in mind your reputation in the community and the efforts that you have made to establish yourself.  However, the most telling mitigation in your case, is your plea of guilty.  The Court sentence on you is one of 4 years' imprisonment on Count 1 and 1 year's imprisonment concurrent on Count 2.

7.        Paul Graham you are aged 31.  You have previous convictions for possession of class A and B drugs, though not for supplying them.  You pleaded guilty only shortly before trial but a significant credit will be given to you nevertheless.  The Social Enquiry Report refers to your medical condition and mental illness and describes problems in imposing a non-custodial sentence were the Court minded to do so.  The Court has also read a Psychiatric Report from Dr Sharkey.  I do not propose to publish the details, suffice it to say that you seemed to that doctor to be an exceptionally vulnerable man.  The Crown's case is that you were the contact between the Jersey conspirators and the United Kingdom suppliers and the Court accepts that.  Advocate Preston submits that the Crown's proposal of a starting point of 8 years is too high.  We have carefully considered that submission but we cannot agree.  It is a starting point which we adopt.  Nevertheless, there is substantial mitigation available to you because of your medical problems, and a significant discount for your plea of guilty.  If you were not physically forced to participate your mental condition certainly made you vulnerable to pressure.  We allow further mitigation and reduction on that account.  The sentence we arrive at in your case is 4 years' imprisonment on Count 1 and 1 year's imprisonment, concurrent on Count 2.

8.        James McCarron you are 39 years old.  You have no relevant previous convictions.  You pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and so you are entitled to a full discount.  You were only involved in Count 2 a lesser quantity of drugs under two kilograms.  The Crown is not in a position to refute the basis of your plea that you intended to buy cannabis for your personal use and that of your friends and did not do so on a commercial basis.  The starting point is correspondingly reduced and the Court adopts a figure of 2½ years.  Accordingly the Court sentences you on that footing.  You in the Court's view are in a different category to the other defendants.  Like them you have produced good references.  The Social Enquiry Report suggests a period of community service combined with a binding over order.  The Court will accede to that suggestion.  The sentence is that you perform 180 hours' Community Service to be completed within 12 months.  That would be coupled with the requirement that you attend a drugs and alcohol course as directed by your probation officer. 

9.        Steven James Pereira, you are aged 21, you have no previous convictions.  You pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to Count 1, therefore, you would appear to be entitled to full discount of your sentence.  However, the Crown submits that that should be reduced because you gave evidence in Beamer's case which the Jury rejected.  In fact you were called on behalf of a co-defendant, named Goldie, who was acquitted, and the Court are not inclined to make any difference to the reduction which you have earned by your plea of guilty.  Moreover very much in your favour is the fact that you lead the police to the stash of drugs and your co-operation was considerable.  You were an active and important party to the conspiracy, though not at the forefront of it.  You too have produced good references both personal and professional.  The starting point in your case is 7 years.  We make a reduction for your plea of guilty, your youth provides some mitigation together with your co-operation with the police.  We have read the Social Enquiry Report, you are said to represent a low risk of re-offending.  The Probation Officer has difficulty in making any recommendation.  It is clear to the Court in your case that only a custodial sentence would be appropriate.  The Crown's conclusion is one of 4 years' imprisonment.  In the Court's view that does not properly reflect the degree of mitigation in your case.  The Court's sentence is one of 3 years' imprisonment. 

10.      John Beamer, you are now 21, only 19 at the time of the offence.   When you gave evidence before me there was, of course, no reference to your criminal record and I make no complaint about that.  It now appears that you have convictions for serious offences, kidnapping and assault, though none for drug related offences.  The Social Enquiry Report refers to your good family background and your sound education.  It is difficult to understand why you became involved in crime.  The report suggests that you are, or represent, a low risk of re-offending.  It said on the one hand that you accept the verdict but on the other that you still maintain your innocence.  You are assessed as suitable for a Community Service Order, but such a course could not in the Court's view be justified in your case.  As to the starting point, no distinction is made between you and Pereira, and the starting point is 7 years.  As in his case your youth provides some mitigation.  However, unlike him you have no credit for a plea of guilty.  Having taken into account all the mitigating circumstances, including the testimonials, the sentence we arrive at in your case is one of 3½ years' imprisonment.

11.      Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered.

Authorities

Campbell and Others 1995 JLR 136.