Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC017

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27^th January 2006

Before     :

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

The Attorney General

-v-

Richard Charles Robert Styles

Joseph Ian Day

Joseph Thomas Carney

Timothy Christopher James

Cliff Alberto de Sousa

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

Richard Charles Robert Styles

1 count of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.

Age:  36.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between 1^st July 2003 and 6^th October 2003, the five Defendants conspired to evade the prohibition on importing cannabis into Jersey.  Three hold-alls containing cannabis were dropped from a light aircraft onto Les Landes in October 2003.  The total weight of cannabis was 86,945.55.  Street value: £515,520.  Wholesale value: £358,000.

In July 2003 Styles visited Rennes in Northern France in company with Carney, in order to plan the importation.  In August 2003 Styles visited Jersey. His intention was to find a suitable drop-point.  On 2^nd October 2003 Styles hired a light aircraft from an airfield in Buckinghamshire.  He flew to Pocklington Airfield, south East Yorkshire.  Three hold-alls containing cannabis were loaded onto the aircraft by Carney and Day.  Styles piloted the aircraft to Dinard, France.  His flight path took him over Jersey, where the aircraft dropped in height and reduced speed.  The intended drop-point was the model aircraft runway at Les Landes. Carney and Day ejected the hold-alls, but missed their target.  The following day Styles flew Carney and Day to Jersey to search for the drugs.  No comment interview.

Details of Mitigation:

Totality principle in respect of 5 years' imprisonment pending in Belgium not advanced.  Acted as courier.  Not the source of supply; therefore not the worst kind of Defendant, committing the worst kind of importation.  Does not merit statutory maximum.

Previous Convictions:

15^th July, 1997:  possessing controlled drug.  Criminal Court, Boulogne, France.  1 year 6 months' imprisonment and banned from France for 3 years.  (Light aircraft.  Exportation ecstasy from France to UK).

Attempt to export controlled drugs.  No separate penalty.

18^th November, 2003:  Importation/exportation of drugs (September 2000).  3 years' imprisonment increased to 5 years on appeal (Piloted light aircraft to Belgium.  Crashed on take-off. 130,000 ecstasy tablets recovered in bag near by).

Further dishonesty and unrelated matters.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

13 years' imprisonment.

Professional international importer of drugs.  Sophisticated importation only possible due to Styles skills as a pilot.  Professional planning.  Hired aircraft.  Plotted route.  Contemptuous disregard for previous sentences.  Identical modus operandi.  No comment interview.  Convicted after trial.  Refusal to co-operate with Probation.  Starting point 14 years, statutory maximum.  Limited mitigation 13 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

12 years' imprisonment.

Conspiracy was sophisticated and well planned.  Amount of drugs substantial.  Styles was at the heart of the conspiracy and close to source of supply.  A skilled pilot, experienced in flying light aircraft for drugs smuggling.  Plan not possible without Styles.  Guidelines in AG -v- Campbell are appropriate.  Starting point 12 years.  Statutory maximum too high as there could be worse cases.  Do not take totality of Belgium sentence into account.  No mitigation.  Sentence - 12 years' imprisonment, consecutive to term of imprisonment, to which already subject.

Confiscation:  agreed benefit assessed at £89,500.  No assets uncovered.  £1 compensation ordered.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Joseph Ian Day

1 count of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.

Age:  35.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between 1^st July 2003 and 6^th October 2003, the five Defendants conspired to evade the prohibition on importing cannabis into Jersey.  Three hold-alls containing cannabis were dropped from a light aircraft onto Les Landes in October 2003.  The total weight of cannabis was 86,945.55.  Street value: £515,520.  Wholesale value: £358,000.

In July 2003 Day visited Jersey in order to plan for the drugs drop.  On 2^nd October 2003 Day, in company with Carney and others, arrived by car with the drugs at Pocklington Airfield.  The hold-alls were loaded onto the aircraft. Once over Jersey, Day and Carney ejected the drugs from the aircraft.  The following day Styles flew Day and Carney back to Jersey to search for the hold-alls.  Day and Carney met with James and De Sousa and proceeded to Les Landes to search for the drugs.  Day and Carney left Jersey by ferry on 4^th October 2003.  No comment interview.  Served alibi notice that he had travelled to France in a lorry and reached Dinard by train.  This was false.

Details of Mitigation:

 Wife and two children (aged 9 and 11) by Day's imprisonment.  Limited contact.  Wife had cancer scare.  Detrimental effect on behalf of Day's elderly mother.  Sad childhood: in several foster homes for 9 years.

Stable employment history.  Child Protection Officer employed by Liverpool Social Services at time of his arrest. 

Antecedents: offending limited to between 1989 and 1999.  None relate to drugs offences. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

10 years' imprisonment.

Professional importer of drugs.  Travelled with drugs therefore close to source of supply.  Responsible for ejecting drugs.  Had been involved in planning.  Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.  Little mitigation.  No comment interview.  False alibi.  Convicted after trial.  Appropriate sentence: 10 years' imprisonment .

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

10 years' imprisonment.

Conspiracy was sophisticated and well planned.  Amount of drugs substantial.  Guidelines in AG -v- Campbell are appropriate.  No relevant previous convictions.  Involved in three capacities (i) take drugs/accompany someone else who took them to aircraft; (ii) accompany Styles in aircraft and jettison drugs; (iii) return to Jersey to find and retrieve drugs because they missed their target.  You were close to the source of supply and you took part in the planning.  Starting point of 12 years.  But role was less than that of Styles.  Some reduction from starting point.  Sentence: 10 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation: agreed realisable assets £20,712.23.  Argument as to benefit.  Adjourned.

Joseph Thomas Carney

1 count of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.

Age:  29.

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between 1^st July 2003 and 6^th October 2003, the five Defendants conspired to evade the prohibition on importing cannabis into Jersey.  Three hold-alls containing cannabis were dropped from a light aircraft onto Les Landes in October 2003.  The total weight of cannabis was 86,945.55.  Street value: £515,520.  Wholesale value: £358,000.

In July 2003 Carney accompanied Styles to Northern France by light aircraft in order to plan the importation.  On 2^nd October 2003 Carney, in company with Day and others, arrived by car with the drugs at Pocklington Airfield.  The hold-alls were loaded onto the aircraft.  Once over Jersey, Carney and Day ejected the drugs from the aircraft.  The following day Styles flew Carney and Day back to Jersey to search for the hold-alls.  Carney and Day met with James and De Sousa and proceeded to Les Landes to search for the drugs.  Carney and Day left Jersey by ferry on 4^th October 2003.  In interview Carney admitted flying from France to Jersey.  Denied knowing De Sousa or James.  Did not remember going up to Les Landes.

Details of Mitigation:

'Monkey (as opposed to organ grinder) at the end of the food chain'.  Role was that of a lackey.

Man of low literacy.  Unemployed for virtually all of adult life.  Vulnerable and malleable to the requests of others.

Previous convictions for supply.  But drugs only in flat for a matter of minutes.  Minor involvement reflected in sentencing.

Not connected to any co-defendants by mobile telephone: showing lack of involvement in organisation.

Should compare Campbell guidelines with sentencing for murder, rape sodomy.  Got to leave room at top end of scale for more serious offenders.

Long term partner and young son in Liverpool;

Previous Convictions:

12^th January, 1998: possession cannabis.  Fine £75.

25^th November, 2002: possession of cannabis resin.  Fine £50.

17^th March, 2003: possession of controlled drug Class C.  Fine £50.

28^th April, 2003: possession of cannabis.  Fine £60.

10^th November, 2003: possession of cannabis.  Fine £100.

12^th March, 2004: possession heroin with intent to supply.  30 months' imprisonment.

Further non relevant dishonesty offences.

Imprisonment 30 months.

Further non relevant dishonesty offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

11 years' imprisonment.

No basis to distinguish between role of Carney and Day.  Professional importer of drugs. Travelled with drugs therefore close to source of supply.  Responsible for ejecting drugs.  Had been involved in planning.  Previous conviction for professional drug trafficking.  Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.  Little mitigation.  Lied in interview.  Convicted after trial.  Appropriate sentence:  11 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

10 years' imprisonment.

Conspiracy was sophisticated and well planned.  Amount of drugs substantial.  Guidelines in AG -v- Campbell a\re appropriate.  Social Enquiry Report makes reference to you being vulnerable and easily led.  Previous convictions:  5 possession of cannabis and 6^th for possession of heroin with intent to supply, though less serious than first appears.  Role similar to Day:

(i)             take drugs/accompany someone else who took them to aircraft;

(ii)            accompany Styles in aircraft and jettison drugs;

(iii)           return to Jersey to find and retrieve drugs because they missed their target.

You were close to the source of supply.  You had previously accompanied pilot to France.  Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.  some reduction from starting point.  Sentence: 10 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation:  agreed benefit £89,500.  Realisable assets £696.  Confiscation in the sum of £696.  28 days' imprisonment in default of payment.

Timothy Christopher James

1 count of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.

Age:  26

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between 1^st July 2003 and 6^th October 2003, the five Defendants conspired to evade the prohibition on importing cannabis into Jersey.  Three hold-alls containing cannabis were dropped from a light aircraft onto Les Landes in October 2003.  The total weight of cannabis was 86,945.55.  Street value: £515,520.  Wholesale value: £358,000.

Telephoned mobile telephone number connected to Styles in September 2003, as well as on 2^nd and 3^rd October, 2003.  Role was to collect drugs in company with De Sousa.  Also in contact with known Jersey drugs dealer via telephone during this period.  On 3^rd October 2003, borrowed a motor vehicle from a friend.  Met up with Carney and Day and went to Les Landes in company with De Sousa to search for the drugs.  No comment interview.

Details of Mitigation:

Several steps removed from source of supply.

Only involved towards end of conspiracy.  Telephone calls made to tell him how drugs would be dropped.  Not involved in professional planning.

It has not been proved that telephone calls to Whelan were drug related.  And no evidence who else James spoke to.

Guilty plea not made until after hearing on admissibility of telephone evidence.  Thus not aware of weight of evidence against him until late in the day.

Credit for being only one of co-defendants to plead.

Age.

Gave name of Bevan to appear as prosecution witness, albeit that Bevan did not attend.

Testimonials from friends, family and employers.

Remorseful.

Has started new life in Cheltenham away from bad influences on Jersey.  He has gained employment and remained out of trouble for 18 months.

Probation report: low risk of re-offending.

Has commenced a National extension college course.

Previous Convictions:

6^th July 2001:   possession controlled drug on 1^st January 2001 to 20 January 2001.  3 months' imprisonment.

Possession controlled drug with intent to supply on 1^st January to 20^th January, 2001.  8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.

Link between the UK end of the conspiracy and those involved in Jersey.  Responsible for collecting drugs after dropped off.  Relevant previous conviction.  One step removed from source of supply compared with co-defendants.  Starting point: 11 years' imprisonment.  Guilty plea in week prior to trial.  Not entitled to full discount of 1/3^rd (3 ½ years).  Discount of 3 years.  Appropriate sentence 7 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.

Conspiracy was sophisticated and well planned.  Amount of drugs substantial.  Guidelines in AG -v- Campbell are appropriate.  Youngest of all defendants.  Pleaded guilty, entitling you to substantial discount.  Previous conviction.  Testimonials.  Accept you were link between UK/Jersey.  But further from source than co-defendants.  Starting point - 10 years' imprisonment.  Strong mitigating features.  Done your best to keep clear of crime by moving to England.  Good employment record.  Sentence: 5 years' imprisonment.

Cliff Alberto de Sousa

1 count of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.

Age:  28

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between 1^st July 2003 and 6^th October 2003, the five Defendants conspired to evade the prohibition on importing cannabis into Jersey.  Three hold-alls containing cannabis were dropped from a light aircraft onto Les Landes in October 2003.  The total weight of cannabis was 86,945.55.  Street value: £515,520.  Wholesale value: £358,000.

Role was to collect drugs in company with James.  Also in contact with known Jersey drugs dealers via telephone during this period.  On 3^rd October 2003, borrowed a motor vehicle from a friend.  Met up with Carney and Day and went to Les Landes in company with James to search for the drugs.  In interview: admitted meeting with James and Whelan.  Met James in company with two men by name of Joe.  Borrowed car and drove to St Ouen.  Walked up cliff path with others but did not know what they were looking for.  Denied involvement in searching.

Details of Mitigation:

Least involved of all defendants.  Not involved in planning.

No evidence De Sousa in contact with known drugs dealers.

Should be element of 'tapering off' in large scale drugs cases where Defendant plays minor role.

No supply took place as drugs intercepted.

Attended interview voluntarily.

He was forthcoming in interview, albeit that he did not make full admissions.  Deserves credit for that.

Age.

Last conviction in 1988.  And has remained out of trouble whilst on bail.

Hardship suffered whilst in custody.

Support of mother who appeared in Court.

Reference.

Previous Convictions:

8^th January, 1998:  Possessing controlled drug.  Bound over 6 months to attend drug awareness course. 

Supply controlled drug.  Probation order 1 year.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

8½ years' imprisonment.

Involved in searching for lost drugs.  Least involved of all co-defendants.  Further step removed from source of supply than James.  Starting point: 10 years' imprisonment .  Convicted after trial .  One relevant previous conviction.  Appropriate sentence 8½ years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.

Conspiracy was sophisticated and well planned.  Amount of drugs substantial.  Guidelines in AG -v Campbell are appropriate.  Aged 26 at time of offence.  Last conviction in 1998 and only minor previous convictions.  Testimonial from former employer.  Least involved of all defendants.  You were only involved at a late stage and not involved in planning.  Starting point 10 years.  Have shown a degree of co-operation.  Sentence: 7 years' imprisonment.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for Styles.

Advocate D. Gilbert for Day.

Advocate L. J. Springate for James.

Advocate M. L. Pallot for Carney.

Advocate R. C. L. Juste for De Sousa.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The five defendants have either been convicted of, or in one case have pleaded guilty to, a conspiracy to import cannabis resin into the Island.  The conspiracy was sophisticated and well planned.  The amount of drugs albeit a Class B drug, cannabis resin, and not Class A drugs was substantial, just under 87 kilograms with a street value of over half a million pounds.  The plan had been well prepared over a period of time, and involved hiring, flying and navigating a light aeroplane from an aerodrome in the south of England to a rendezvous in the north of England to pick up the drugs and then a flight over the north west corner of Jersey where the drugs were dropped from the aircraft.  There they were to be retrieved by other members of the conspiracy.

2.        The rewards for so doing were no doubt to be high.  The drugs missed their target and were retrieved by the police before the reception party found them.  At the heart of the conspiracy was a skilled pilot, experienced not only in flying a light aircraft but in doing so for the illicit purpose of smuggling drugs.  Others in England played their part in transporting the drugs to a remote airfield in the north of England, in accompanying the pilot and ejecting the drugs from the aircraft and as things turned out in helping the reception party in Jersey in an attempt to recover them.

3.        This is a serious case which must be met by substantial custodial sentences.  The guidelines have been set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of AG -v- Campbell and Ors [1995] JLR 136.  They suggest a starting point for importations over 30 kilograms in weight at a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment.  The way the Court announced its verdict was as follows:

"We also agree that in cannabis cases the appropriate starting points in the case of quantities over 30 kilograms are a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment and that said we reiterate, for the avoidance of doubt, that these figures are starting points before any mitigation is taken into account on any ground." 

4.        In the Court's opinion those guidelines are appropriate and applicable to the present case, albeit that this is a case of conspiracy, but the importation did in fact take place.  The Court orders the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.   Those are our general observations.  We shall sentence each of the defendants separately.

5.        Richard Charles Robert Styles, you are aged 36, but there is no Social Enquiry Report on you because you declined to be interviewed by a probation officer.  You have previous convictions, two of which were for drug offences involving the use of a light aircraft, and which are therefore of particular relevance to this case.  It is clear to the Court that you were and are prepared to use your skill and experience as a qualified pilot for unlawful purposes and no doubt for considerable reward.  You were at the heart of this conspiracy, and close to the source of supply of the drugs.  The maximum sentence for this offence is 14 years' imprisonment.  That is what the Crown submits should be the starting point for this sentencing exercise.  However, the Court considers that serious as this case is, it is possible as subsequent cases have revealed, to envisage even more serious cases, and it reduces the starting point somewhat to 12 years.

6.        The Court bore in mind that you are already subject to a term of imprisonment in Belgium, and was prepared to consider the totality principle so as to cause the Court to stand back and reflect whether the total sentence would be a fair one.  However, your advocate, Mr Tremoceiro, has told us that the Belgium sentence is not a matter for this Court; and he said that he was instructed not to advance the totality principle.  Accordingly we do not do so, and we impose upon you a sentence which we regard as the proper sentence for this offence.  As we have already made it plain, we regard you as being at the heart of this conspiracy, and without you the plan could not have been put into operation. 

7.        As agreed the Court makes a finding that you have benefited from drug trafficking in the sum of £89,500. The realisable amount is nil and accordingly the Court makes a nominal confiscation order in the sum of £1.  The Court has considered whether there is any mitigation in your case, which would enable it to reduce the sentence from the starting point of 12 years.  The Court can see no mitigation and accordingly the sentence upon you is one of 12 years' imprisonment.  That will be consecutive to the total period of imprisonment to which you are already subject.

8.        Joseph Ian Day, you are aged 35.  The Social Enquiry Report on you contains no recommendation.  You have previous convictions of a different character.  They are not drug related, you have not previously received a custodial sentence, and the last of them was in November 1999. 

9.        In the Court's view you were involved in the present case in three capacities.  First to take the drugs, or accompany someone else who took them, to the rendezvous with the aircraft at Pocklington in the north of England.  Second to accompany Styles in the aircraft and to jettison the drugs when you arrived over the dropping point in Jersey and third, because the drugs missed their target, as a member of the team on the ground attempting to find and retrieve them.  You were clearly close to the source of supply and the Court is satisfied that you took part in the planning of the importation and notes that you visited Jersey in July prior to the importation for that purpose. 

10.      The Court adopts in your case a starting point of 12 years' imprisonment.  However, your rôle though important, was less than that of Styles, and in your case the Court is able to make some reduction from the starting point and sentences you to a period of 10 years' imprisonment.  So far as the confiscation order is concerned the Court adjourns any finding, either until later this afternoon, or to some future occasion.

11.      Joseph Thomas Carney, you are aged 29.  The Social Enquiry Report makes no recommendation, though there is a reference to you being easily led and vulnerable to the requests of others.  You have many previous convictions, five for possession of cannabis and a sixth for possession of heroin with intent to supply, though apparently that was only for a matter of minutes and was much less serious than might first have appeared.

12.      Your rôles were similar to that of Day's in this case.  First to take the drugs to the rendezvous with the aircraft at the airfield at Pocklington in the north of England.  Second to accompany Styles and to drop the drugs over Jersey and third, as it turns out, to attempt to find and retrieve the drugs when they had missed their target.  In the Court's view you took part in the planning of this and you were close to the source of supply.  The Court notes that on a previous occasion you had accompanied the pilot, Styles, to Rennes in France.

13.      Prior to this hearing the Court had read Advocate Pallot's skeleton argument and noted that he submitted, rightly, that the mitigation available to you is limited.  We do not agree with him that there was no evidence at trial of the level of your involvement; there was evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, to show your involvement in the three respects to which I have referred.  There is evidence that you with Styles visited Rennes at the end of July. 

14.      This Court regards itself as bound by guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Campbell to which I have already referred, and in any event regards those guidelines as being correct.  In your case the Court adopts a starting point of 12 years' imprisonment.  It is able to make some reduction from that, in your case, as in the case of Joseph Day, and the sentence upon you is one of 10 years' imprisonment.  As agreed the Court makes findings that you benefited from drug trafficking in the sum of £89,500.  The realisable amount is £696.00 and the Court orders confiscation of that sum.  It imposes a term of 28 days imprisonment, consecutive in default of payment.

15.      Timothy Christopher James.  You are 26 and therefore the youngest of all the defendants.  You have pleaded guilty which distinguishes you from the other defendants and entitles you to a substantial discount from your sentence.  You have previous convictions for possession of drugs and possession with intent to supply.

16.      The writer of the Social Enquiry Report is unable to offer a constructive alternative to custody.  In your case the Court has read a number of testimonials from members of your family, from friends and associates, and from former employers, in addition to a statement from you.  The Court accepts the Crown's submission that you were the link between England and Jersey as evidenced by the numerous telephone calls.  However, you were further from the source of supply than the other defendants who have already being sentenced.

17.      The Court adopts, as it is bound to do, a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment.  However in your case there are in the Court's view strong mitigating features.  You did your best to keep clear of crime by moving to England.  Your advocate, no doubt on your instructions, has in open Court referred to certain information and having regard to that and all other mitigating factors and in particular to your plea of guilty, the Court is able to make a substantial reduction from the starting point.  The Court also had regard to your good employment record and your supportive family.  The sentence upon you is one of 5 years' imprisonment.

18.      Cliff Alberto de Souza.  You are aged 28, only 26 at the time this offence occurred.  The writer of the Social Enquiry Report is unable to offer any realistic alternative option to a custodial sentence.  You have previous convictions for minor offences, including possession of cannabis though the last of your convictions was in 1998.  You have a good testimonial from former employers, which the Court has read.  The Crown acknowledges that you were the least involved of all defendants and the Court finds you only became involved at a late stage and were not involved in the planning of the offence.

19.      In view of the guideline case the starting point must be one of 10 years' imprisonment.  On your behalf Advocate Juste has urged a number of mitigating factors.  In particular she submits that you have shown a degree of co-operation. You remained on the Island after you knew that you were likely to be arrested and charged with this offence.  You answered questions at an interview albeit not going to far as to admit your own culpability.  You were trusted so as to be allowed free on bail pending your trial.  These mitigating factors enable the Court to reduce the sentence from the starting point and the sentence imposed on you is one of 7 years' imprisonment.

Authorities

AG -v- Campbell and Ors [1995] JLR 136.