Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC063

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25^th April, 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher Thomas Morgan

Confiscation order following guilty plea and sentencing on two drug related charges.

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

Advocate D. M. Cadin for Morgan.

Advocate J. P. Michel for Mrs Julie Anne Rennick Morgan.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This is a judgment of the Court in the case of Christopher Thomas Morgan.  By his pleas of guilty to two indictments the defendant, has admitted his involvement in two drug related offences.  They were committed eighteen months apart in the spring of 2003, and in the autumn of 2004.  In the first offence the defendant admitted assisting Anthony Reynolds to retain the benefits of drugs trafficking.  Reynolds was a drug dealer in Liverpool and the defendant has admitted taking £5,000 in cash to Liverpool for him.  This was in payment or part-payment of a planned importation into Jersey of a kilogram of heroin.  The sum involved had considerable purchasing power in Liverpool and despite defence submissions the Court found that the defendant was more than a mere conduit or courier.

2.        In the second offence, the defendant admitted conspiracy with others to supply cannabis resin to persons unknown in Jersey.  The defendant was found to be in possession of, in the sense of having under his control the sum of £32,750 which he knew was related to drugs.  In sentencing him the Court observed that he was entrusted with the safe keeping of a substantial sum of drugs money and described him as a key participant in the conspiracy.

3.        The Attorney General now asks the Court to proceed to confiscation under Article 3 (1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988.  In doing so the Court may first determine whether the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking.  For this purpose the Court may make certain assumptions as set out in Article 5 (3) of the law.  The Court has to approach its task, applying the standard of proof applicable in Civil Proceedings, i.e. on the balance of probabilities.  In making its findings the Court must find on evidence and must avoid extraneous hypotheses. 

4.        As the Court understands the submission of Advocate Cadin on the defendant's behalf he does not dispute that the Attorney General has established that the defendant has benefited to the extent of the two sums already referred to, i.e. a total of £37,750.   However, the Attorney General seeks to go further than this.  Crown Advocate Baker on his behalf submits that the total amount of the defendant's benefit is £111,510.  The sums which make up this figure in addition to those conceded by the defence are as follows:

(i)        £65,500 being the valued placed on a stash of cannabis resin found in Augrés Woods; and

(ii)       £73,760 being the value placed upon transactions allegedly recorded in dealers lists in the possession of co-conspirators.  From this latter sum should be deducted the amount of cash (£32,750) found in the defendant's possession. 

5.        These two figures, the net amount of which is £106,510, represent the sums in dispute as to the extent of the benefit to the defendant from drug trafficking. 

6.        It is urged on the Court that there is no evidence that the defendant benefited from his dealings beyond the specific amounts referred to.  It is submitted that investigation of his financial affairs does not reveal any excessively lavish life style, but suggests a picture of a local builder living with his wife in a modest house being purchased by means of a mortgage.

7.        The Court bears this in mind.  However, it cannot accept the suggestion made at the sentencing hearing that the only advantage or benefit to the defendant was "a drink at Christmas".  Here was a mature and ostensibly respectable man who must have realised what he was letting himself in for and the risks he was taking.  It is unthinkable that he would do so without receiving substantial rewards. 

8.        Moreover the defendant was entrusted by drug dealers with their money on these two occasions at least.  It is clear to the Court that he was indeed trusted by them, and that this trust must have been built up and developed over a period of time.

9.        There is evidence that the defendant was in frequent telephone contact with a man named Paul Graham, a co-conspirator, who was the contact between Jersey drug dealers and UK suppliers.  Graham had with him a piece of paper on which there were three telephone numbers one of which was the defendants'. 

10.      There is evidence that the defendant lied about whether or not he rented a garage where the large sum of money was found.  There is, as has been said, direct evidence that the defendant was in possession of drugs money on two separate occasions.  The evidence enables the Court to draw a legitimate inference that cash was going through the defendant's hands which was destined for drug dealers in England. 

11.      The Attorney General submits that the stash of cannabis resin found in the woods, 16.5 kilograms, formed the stock upon which the conspirators were able to draw for supply to the users in Jersey and that the defendant can properly be connected with it.  The defendant disagrees and points to the fact that the drugs were not found, for example, in his garden.  Nonetheless, he was a co-conspirator and a key participant.  It is obvious to the Court that there had been previous withdrawals from this stash found in the wood and that dealings had already taken place.  The money found in the defendant's possession, formed part at least of the profits from such dealings.  There is evidence to suggest that the defendant intended shortly afterwards to transport that money to England.  The Court finds that the defendant was clearly connected to, and knew about the stash. 

12.      How had the supply been paid for?  Either it had been paid for in advance or it had been obtained on credit.  If, as seems more likely, it had been paid for in advance where had the purchase money come from and who had provided it?  Given the defendants on going involvement in the drugs world it can properly be inferred that the cash used to pay for the consignment came through the defendant's hands.

13.      The Attorney General submits and the Court accepts that either that or the defendant had a financial interest in the drugs and they were paid for on his behalf. 

14.      That being so the Court makes the assumption set out in Article 5 (3) of the law.  It assumes that the drugs were paid for out of payments received by the defendant in connection with drug trafficking.  Moreover, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defendant to rebut this assumption.

15.      Thus, the value of the drugs found in the stash, £65,500 constitutes a benefit in the defendant's hands and we assess it as such for the purpose of these proceedings. 

16.      However the Attorney General submits that the original consignment must have been larger than that.  We agree but the problem is in assessing its value.  The Attorney General originally sought to double the value but the case presented to us was that it amounted to £73,760.  This was based on calculations taken from dealers lists found in the possession of co-defendants.  There is a respectable argument for this contention, but bearing in mind the burden of proof, albeit only to the Civil standard, the Court is not persuaded that it ought to accept it.  They take the view that the evidence on this part of the case is too tenuous and that it would not be safe to act upon it. 

17.      Accordingly the Court assesses the defendant's benefit from drug trafficking as follows:

(i)        The value of the stash £65,500.

(ii)       The cash in the garage £32,750.

(iii)      Money taken to the United Kingdom £5,000. 

Total £103,250.

18.      We next consider what are the defendant's realisable assets?  Here we have been greatly assisted by an agreement reached between counsel, including counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant's wife.  The total is agreed at £137,004, i.e. the sum which exceeds the benefits. 

19.      We therefore find that the sum to be recovered is £103,250 and we order confiscation in that amount.

20.      A substantial proportion of the assets is represented by the defendant's half share in a matrimonial home.  Having heard from Mrs Morgan's advocate, Advocate Michel, we decline to make a recommendation in relation to it.  Advocate Michel told us of hardship which Mrs Morgan would face, however he did not elaborate or give details of her earning capacity, save to describe her employment as that of an offshore underwriter. 

21.      However, should it become necessary to dispose of the matrimonial home in order to satisfy the Order we grant a stay of three months in respect of that asset only.

22.      We will hear Advocate Cadin if he wishes to address us on the question of the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment.

Authorities

Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988.