Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC018

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2^nd February 2006

Before     :

F. C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner and Jurats Le Brocq, Bullen, Le Breton, Clapham, King and Le Cornu.

The Attorney General

-v-

Robert Joseph Franey

Sarah Jane Hubbard

Henry Joseph McAlinden

Julie Sharp

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty pleas to:

Robert Joseph Franey

1 count 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) 1999.  (Count 1 Heroin).

Age:  45

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

139.21 grams of heroin imported from the United Kingdom.  It was carried internally by Sharp, the courier, who was accompanied by Franey.  In Jersey, Sharp handed the heroin over to Franey who then delivered it to McAlinden.  Franey and McAlinden were in close contact with the ultimate supplier in the United Kingdom prior to the importation until the hand-over if the heroin.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea. 

Previous Convictions:

Previous convictions - 25 previous convictions mainly for dishonesty. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  12 years).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

8 years' imprisonment.

Sarah Jane Hubbard

1 count 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) 1999.  (Count 2 Heroin).

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Hubbard drove her boyfriend, McAlinden to meet with Franey.  The handover of heroin took place in her car.  Hubbard was not aware of the arrangements concerning the importation, however she was aware that Franey was in possession of heroin when he entered her car and that he was going to supply McAlinden with the heroin.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Participation at the bottom end.  Offence not pre-meditated.  Removed from the source of supply.

Previous Convictions:

2 years' imprisonment.

Conclusions:

Count 2:

2 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 2:

2 years' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, supervision and treatment order.

Henry Joseph McAlinden

1 count 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) 1999.

Age:  47.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Franey above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.

Previous Convictions:

14 previous convictions including 9 drugs convictions for possession.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

6 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  11 years' imprisonment).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  12 years' imprisonment).

Julie Sharp

1 count 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) 1999.

Age:  40.

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

See Franey above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.

Previous Convictions:

3 previous convictions including 4 offences of supplying heroin in 2000 for which she received 15 months' imprisonment.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 10 years' imprisonment).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

4 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 10 years' imprisonment).

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

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for Franey.

Advocate R. C. L. Juste for Hubbard.

Advocate M. L. Preston for McAlinden.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for Sharp.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        There are four defendants and three face one count of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of heroin, Hubbard has pleaded guilty to being concerned with the supply of heroin.  Neither Franey nor Sharp has connection with Jersey.  The heroin originated in the Liverpool area and Franey was clearly the prime mover in England.  It was he who accompanied Sharp, who had put the heroin inside her body when they came to Jersey.  She acted according to her instructions, but told the Probation Officer that she was in fear of what might happen to her 15 year old daughter if she refused. 

2.        Fortunately for the community in the Island and unfortunately for the four accused the police had already been tracking the shipment and it is hoped that the main supplier will shortly be brought to justice.  It is disturbing that Franey and McAlinden, his contact in Jersey, were in telephone contact with this person known to the police, who was clearly pivotal in the importation, organisation and exchange process of the heroin and that contact ceased as a result of the constant police surveillance.

3.        The heroin seized amounted to a total of 139.21 grams with a purity of some 42%.  This is apparently good quality heroin.  The wholesale value is approximately £25,000 but the street value in Jersey is nearer to £70,000.

4.        In Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001] JLR 373, the Court of Appeal set bands for heroin carried or sold in powder form and gave a starting point of between 10 and 13 years' imprisonment, for amounts between 100 and 250 grams the Court said this, however:

"These bands represent only guidelines and are not to be treated as if embodied in a statute, the position of a particular defendant on a particular count within one of the bands is to be determined by reference to the weight of drugs and their rôle and involvement as principal factors together with other lesser but relevant factors.  The Court had already spoken of the rôle and involvement of each defendant".

5.        We are going to deal with each of the accused in turn.  Franey, you were clearly responsible for the importation from England to Jersey of these drugs and from the tracing of your telephone calls you were in touch with the English drugs baron.  It appears that, when the booking for Mrs Sharp was made with Condor for the trip to Jersey, the booking clerk may well have misheard, Miss or Mrs your address, and your telephone number were given.  You have 25 previous convictions for dishonesty and you have a long standing history of substance abuse.  You are clearly trusted by those who supplied the drugs.  They even gave you £300 to settle any expenses while in Jersey.  You have pleaded guilty which in the circumstances had to be correct, but it must be said that that avoided the necessity of an expensive trial.

6.        The damage that could have been caused within this small community had it not been for the vigilance of the police officers does not really bear thinking of.  It has been questioned as to why you are involved at all.  You are involved because you are in charge of the drugs until they are handed over; whether they are inside the body of Mrs Sharp or in a Spar paper bag is irrelevant.  We start at 12 years' imprisonment and with your guilty plea and such mitigating factors as are available we will reduce that to 8 years' imprisonment.  We therefore follow the conclusion of the Crown.

7.        McAlinden, we cannot however hard we try to differentiate your responsibility with this dreadful crime from that of Franey, and we intend to take a starting point for you also of 12 years' imprisonment.  There is no doubt in the Court's mind that you are also deeply involved in this filthy trade.  You knew where and when to meet Franey.  It was Franey, after you had moved from the front passenger seat to the rear seat of the car who passed you the shopping bag full of drugs.  We have read your letter, and your employer's letter of 3^rd August 2005, you are a drug addict and we note that you have been injecting a £50 bag of heroin a day since Christmas 2004.  That is in the report of Mr Gafoor of 12^th November 2005.

8.        One of the most serious aspects of this case is the harm that would have been done if the amount of heroin had reached the streets of St Helier.  We note that you have struggled with your long term addiction and despite your record there is no evidence to suggest that you have been involved in importation in the past.  Yet you were to be entrusted with the disposal of some £70,000 worth of heroin.  You too have pleaded guilty which is not as valuable as it might have been in other circumstances, but that with the other mitigation allows us to reduce your sentence and you are therefore sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

9.        Mrs Sharp you are a heroin and crack cocaine addict.  You have had a very sad life and we have carefully considered the letters that we have received.  We have noted the personal violence and the threats of violence in your life recently and you have a bad record including a conviction on the 9^th November, 2000, for four offences of supplying heroin; for that you served 15 months' imprisonment in the Wirral 6 years ago. 

10.      We have carefully considered all the reports and your defence counsel's able arguments and we will take a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment and we are going to reduce that to 4 years' imprisonment.  We will make a recommendation because of the letters we have received that your sentence is served in H.M.P. in Styal.

11.      Hubbard, we have no doubt that your participation in this dreadful offence is at the lower end of the scale.  We agree with Crown Advocate Baker that we can move away from the Rimmer Lusk & Bade guidelines.  You pleaded guilty as did your other three co-accused.  We note all that has been said and written about you, particularly we note your work for nearly three years for the Shelter Trust, and your parents and your brother have sat in Court throughout the trial.  We are going to sentence you to 2 years' imprisonment, but that will be suspended for a period of 2 years.  If during the 2 years you commit any serious offence punishable by imprisonment you will have to serve a further period of imprisonment for this offence.  During this period you will be supervised by a probation officer and you will also have imposed upon you a Drug Treatment Order which means you will attend at the Drug and Alcohol Service as required for a period of 12 months. 

12.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001] JLR 373.