Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC031

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

3rd March 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher Thomas Morgan

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on a guilty plea to:

The Crown accepted a not guilty plea on Count 1.

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

This case was connected to the case of AG -v- Durkin and Others (see judgment [2004] JRC 163).  Durkin and Howard had conspired to import a kilo of heroin into Jersey in February/March, 2003.  They were purchasing a kilo from Anthony Reynolds who was based in Liverpool for the sum of £20,000.  The Police had been conducting an intrusive surveillance operation against Durkin and Howard and a covert audio recording device had been concealed within Durkin's flat.  Durkin and Howard had been heard discussing the sending of £5,000 as a part payment or instalment on the purchase price for the kilo.  On the 2^nd March, 2003, the transcripts evidenced Durkin making the preparation for travel to the UK.  He was then heard to make a telephone call to a male whom he addressed only as "Chris".  This was the now accused.  Arrangements were made for Durkin to meet Morgan at the car part of the Jersey Bowl prior to Durkin flying out to the UK.  The meeting took place and during the meeting Durkin handed Morgan the sum of £5,000 in cash.  The next day Morgan travelled to the UK where he met Reynolds and handed to him £5,000.  At that time Reynolds was a serving prisoner, albeit in an Open Prison.  The involvement of Morgan was only identified when he was arrested for other offences and a full investigation into his telephone records was made.  The telephone analysis showed contact between him and Reynolds in the UK and with Durkin.

The factual basis for Morgan's plea was that he was initially asked by his brother who was also an inmate in a Liverpool Prison to do a favour for a fellow inmate.  Morgan agreed to assist and hew as then subsequently contacted by Reynolds.  Reynolds asked Morgan to bring some money to the UK for him.  When he met Durkin he thought it was £500 but it was subsequently clarified to him when he handed the money over to Reynolds that it was £5,000.  Morgan had agreed to do this and at the time that he did agree he knew that what he was being asked to do was "dodgy" and that furthermore he knew that Reynolds was or had been engaged in drug trafficking.

Details of Mitigation:

In the Crown's view this was Morgan's second conviction for his involvement in drug trafficking matters.  He had pleaded guilty to an offence in December, 2005.  The factual basis for the current offence and his plea arose prior to his earlier conviction.  On both occasions his involvement had to be to handle or in some way to be responsible for drug trafficking funds.  The Crown's position was that hew as therefore someone who was trusted and therefore by implication close to the ultimate source of the importation or supply of illegal drugs into the Island.

In the absence of any guidelines for offences under the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 and given that cases of this nature were infinitely variable, the Crown did not consider sentencing from a starting point approach.  The Crown had regard to the purchase power of the £5,000 which in itself could have purchased a quarter of a kilo of heroin which would have been worth in excess of £100,000 in Jersey.  The Crown viewed as significant that Morgan was prepared to be involved in this enterprise in that he acknowledged that he was assisting a convicted criminal.  The Crown gave weight to the guilty plea and his lack of prior drug conviction before 2005.

The defence contented that greater credit than had been provided for the Crown should be given for the guilty plea.  The offences had been committed out of an error of judgment.  Count 2 on the indictment had been added at the behest of the Defendant and a guilty plea followed shortly thereafter.  Morgan had been asked to do a favour and played a limited role.  He stood to gain nothing from his involvement.  He was not involved in laundering cash.  He had simply acted as a conduit.  He had good testimonials and references showing that he was honest and had previously led an industrious life.  The defence contended that any sentence should be concurrent rather than consecutive to the term of imprisonment that he was already serving for the earlier offences.  In the alternative the defence argued that if the sentence was consecutive then the Crown's sentence was excessive and that having regard to the case of AG -v- Culkin the starting point for Morgan should become of twelve months from which should be deducted credit for the guilty plea etc.

Previous Convictions:

Three convictions for fourteen offences.  Prior to 2005 the criminal record revealed offences of dishonesty and violence.  In 2005 Morgan had two offences of conspiring/supplying controlled drugs (cannabis).

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. M. Cadin for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Morgan you are aged 41 now, you have pleaded guilty to assisting Anthony Reynolds to retain the benefit of drug trafficking.  The offence was committed three years ago, and at that time you had no convictions for drug related offences.  Unfortunately, since committing that offence you committed another drugs offence, as a result of which you were sentenced to a term of 4 years' imprisonment, which you are now serving.

2.        The Court has read a number of references, testimonials and letters written by member of your family, by friends and by former employers, including your own letter and a letter from your wife.  We have read all those, and they are very moving documents, everyone speaks well of you and gives you a good reputation. 

3.        The Court has already read the Social Enquiry Report, it contains no recommendations.  You are aware of the fact that a custodial sentence is inevitable.  You are not apparently addicted to drugs.  It appears from all the testimonials that you are capable of leading an industrious and honest life, and as you heard me say, it is difficult to understand why you became involved in the present offence, or indeed in the subsequent one.  The only conclusion we can reach is that it was greed.  Either greed or misguided loyalty to your family or friends.

4.        We note the basis of your plea as set out in the documents that you were first asked by your brother, who was an inmate in a Liverpool Prison to do a favour for a fellow inmate.  You agreed to assist and you then subsequently were contacted by Reynolds.  He asked you to bring some money to England for him.  You agreed to do this, and at the time you did agree you knew that what you what you were being asked to do was "dodgy".  Furthermore, you knew Reynolds was, or had been, engaged in drug trafficking.  That is the basis of the plea and it seems to this Court that it amounts to more than being a mere conduit.

5.        The strongest piece of mitigation is undoubtedly your plea of guilty.  Albeit, it was late in the day.  However, you are entitled to a significant reduction in sentence for having pleaded guilty, and it also indicates that some remorse on your part.

6.        Now the circumstances of this kind of offence are so variable that the English Courts have declined to issue guidelines as to sentencing; and the Jersey Courts have not apparently set any starting point.  We bear in mind the sum involved £5,000.  On the face of it that seems to be a modest amount of money but having regard to the substantial mark up of value of drugs in Jersey it has considerable purchasing power in England.

7.        We also have regard to the totality principles.  Since in our view the sentence we impose must necessarily be consecutive to your existing sentence.  We do not agree that it will be appropriate to impose concurrent sentences in this case.  Having regard to all those factors we are able to reduce the sentence proposed by the prosecution in their conclusions.  We think 3 years' imprisonment is too high.  The sentence we impose upon you is 18 months' imprisonment and that will be consecutive to the sentence to which you are already subject. 

8.        We will deal with confiscation on another occasion.

No Authorities