Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC076

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th May 2006

Before     :

Sir Richard Tucker, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle, Le Brocq, Bullen, Clapham and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

Gareth Paul Hume

Darren Leigh Roberts

Steven Lewis Brookes

Adam William Blampied,

Ian Monteith Manson

Sarah Louise Traylen

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

Gareth Paul Hume

First Indictment

2 counts of:

Attempting to incite another to commit an offence (Counts 1 and 2).

Plea: Count 1:  Not guilty, but found guilty after trial.

         Count 2: Not guilty, but found guilty after trial.

Second Indictment

2 counts of:

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

Age:  21.

Plea: Count 1:  Not guilty, but found guilty following Assize trial.

         Count 2:  Not guilty, but found guilty following Assize trial.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

For the full facts and background to the two counts on this Indictment see AG -v- Carter and Others [2005]JRC051, Hume -v- AG [2005]JCA090 and Hume -v- AG [2006]JCA013.

On 10^th April, 2004, 1,480.08 grams of Heroin and 970.4 grams of cocaine were imported into Jersey.  The total street value for this consignment was between £521,872 and £743,992.  The wholesale value was between £284,235 and £358,265.  A co-accused, Carter had acted as courier and the drugs had been brought into Jersey in his car although in the possession of another individual "John Spencer".  The drugs were eventually delivered to the home address of Bridget Allen who was simply to look after them until they were collected.  The Prosecution case as against Hume was based upon the records from his mobile telephone which revealed a number of telephone calls and text messages to Allen.  Hume had pleaded not guilty to the charges then brought against him but was found guilty after trial.   He was sentenced by the Superior Number on 21^st April, 2005 to a total sentence of 11 years.  He, however, appealed to the Court of Appeal who quashed his conviction and sentence and ordered a re-trial.  A re-trial took place in October, 2005 and he was once again convicted.  He once again appealed against that conviction but this time his appeal was dismissed.

Whilst on remand in relation to these offences in August, 2005 Hume committed further offences and thus his sentence on the First Indictment was held over until the conclusion of the matters covered by the Second Indictment.

Second Indictment

This Indictment covered firstly, a conspiracy to supply to a person or persons unknown a kilo of heroin and secondly, a conspiracy to supply to a person or persons unknown 20,039 tablets of MDMA (Ecstasy).  The street value for these drugs was between £495,032 and £643,702 with a wholesale value of between £268,004 and £357,340.

The Crown's case was that Hume organised and/or orchestrated the conspiracies and he did so from his cell at La Moye Prison whilst on remand.  He had access to a mobile telephone which provided his link to one of the co-conspirators, Roberts.  Hume pleaded not guilty to Counts 1 and 2 but was found guilty by an Assize following trial.

Roberts' role had been to take possession of the heroin and the Ecstasy tablets and he followed the instructions issued by Hume. The two were in contact by mobile telephone and public telephone.  Roberts had involved Brookes in the conspiracy and Brookes' involvement was to attend upon Hume to obtain further information for the onward supply and division of the drugs which were in Roberts possession.  Further instructions were received by Roberts from Hume via telephone calls on the mobile phone.  Blampied's involvement was that he took Roberts and Brookes to the Prison so that Brookes could visit Hume and obtain the further information and instructions.  Manson had been involved and had acted as a "minder" or "muscle" when Roberts had gone to collect the drugs from an unknown individual.  The drugs had then been taken back to Manson/Traylen's flat where the drugs were transferred from a holdall in which Roberts had taken possession of them into a number of carrier bags.   Manson and Traylen were provided with personal quantities of heroin by Roberts for their assistance.

All the accused save for Hume had entered guilty pleas.

Roberts, during interview, admitted having been involved in a previous supply of 40,000 Ecstasy tablets approximately two to three months prior to his arrest.  His role on that occasion had been to assist in the delivering of the drugs to various addresses.  He was to be paid £1,500 for his involvement.  It was these admissions which gave rise to Count 9 on the Indictment.

At the time of Brookes' arrest he was found to be in possession of a personal amount of Cannabis (Count 14).  A search of Blampied's home address had been undertaken and a personal amount of cannabis was found (Count 19).

In terms of starting points for sentencing, in relation to the First Indictment the Crown adopted the same starting points which had been applied at the first sentencing hearing for Hume and his then co-accused i.e. 16 and 14 years respectively.  In relation the Second Indictment on Counts 1 and 2, given his role as an organiser the Crown sought starting points of 21 years respectively on Counts 1 and 2.  In relation to Roberts, the starting point moved for was one of 18 years on Counts 1 and 2 and for Brookes, 16 years on Counts 1 and 2.  Starting points were not applicable to the other accused.  The Crown further acknowledged that the totality principle had to be applied in relation to Hume given his criminality under the two Indictments.

Details of Mitigation:

On the First Indictment he had been described as a "runner" or "gopher".  However, on the Second Indictment he had progressed to the position of an organiser and thus he had advanced significantly up the hierarchy of drug dealers.  The Crown viewed as an aggravating factor the fact that he had organised the drugs transaction from his Prison cell whilst serving a sentence for drug offences and whilst awaiting a re-trial for drug offences.  He did not have the benefit of a guilty plea or remorse.  The only mitigating factor the Crown could identify of substance was his residual youth.

Defence suggested that the Court should look at the sentencing guidelines as lengthy sentences were not deterring offenders.  Defence's instructions were that there had been a miscarriage of justice in relation to both Indictments.  Defence agreed that the Court should have regard to the totality principle when looking at the overall criminality.  Hume had a good work record and support of a family before his involvement in these offences.  Members of the family were in Court.  Character references were handed up.  Defence suggested that the total sentence should be one not exceeding 14 years' imprisonment.

Previous Convictions:

Two previous convictions for possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply and supplying a controlled drug.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	11 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 16 years' imprisonment).
Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  (Starting point:  14 years).

Second Indictment

Count 1:	19 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  21 years).
Count 2:	19 years' imprisonment, (Starting point: 19 years).concurrent after totality principle on 1st and 2nd Indictment.

Total sentence moved for 20 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	6 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	9 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	9 years' imprisonment, concurrent with 1, but consecutive, with First Indictment.

Total:  15 years' imprisonment.

The Court has to sentence six offenders.  Five are in their early mid-twenties and one, Manson, is aged 36.  There are two Indictments relating to drug offences and the Court has to consider the amount and value of those drugs and the level of involvement of each of the accused.  The First Indictment involved only Hume and was concerned with heroin and cocaine with a total quantity of 1.5 kilos and a value of half a million pounds.  The Second Indictment involved all the accused and involved Class A drugs again being heroin and Ecstasy.  There were some minor offences involving cannabis, a Class B drug.  There was a kilo of heroin and 20,000 Ecstasy tablets.  The value of those drugs was between £500,000 and £643,000.  These were substantial amounts.  The Court adopted the words of the Deputy Bailiff in the case of AG-v- Carter:  "In Jersey this is a vast amount of Class A drugs, which if it had succeeded in getting onto the streets, would have caused great damage and suffering to the local community, to the young people of our community in particular".  The principle offender was Hume.  He was a fetcher and carrier on the First Indictment and the organiser of the Second.  He had been convicted after an Assize trial.  All the other accused had pleaded guilty and thus were entitled to significant mitigation.  The Court had considered the case against each of them separately.  The Court had considered all of the reports and all of the letters and testimonials put before it.  Where appropriate the Court had considered the correct starting point and made appropriate deductions according to the role played.  It was also noted that all of the accused had been in custody for a period of between 8 and 12 months.

He was aged 24 and he had two previous convictions for possession with intention to supply.  He, therefore, had no mitigation for good character on the Second Indictment but did for the First Indictment.  He did not have the advantage of guilty pleas.  The Court had read the letters from the family and friends.  The role played on the first time was that of a "runner".  He had been sentenced by the Superior Number for previous trial.  The "starting points" imposed then were 16 years and 14 years' imprisonment respectively.  A total sentence of 11 years had been imposed.  The Court did not consider it bound by that sentence and had approached sentencing for the First Indictment fresh.  He also now fell to be dealt with on the Second Indictment.  The Court, therefore, had regard to the totality principle.  The Court accepted that the "starting points" applied of 16 years and 14 years' imprisonment were appropriate.

But for the totality principle, the Court would have imposed 11 years on Count 1 and 5 years on Count 2 on the First Indictment.  However, having regard to the totality principle the Court imposed sentences of 6 years on Count 1 and 4 years on Count 2, concurrent making a total sentence of 6 years' imprisonment.

The offences on the Second Indictment were committed whilst he was in Prison and that fact did not deter him from re-offending.  The Crown took as its "starting point" 18 years on Counts 1 and 2 of the Second Indictment.  In terms of mitigation it was difficult to find any.  He did not have good character nor the benefit of a guilty plea.  He still maintained his innocence.  This was a brazen and determined attempt to orchestrate and supply Class A drugs.  No remorse or regret for his conduct.  But for the totality principle a sentence of 26 years' imprisonment would be appropriate.  On the Second Indictment the Court would impose a 9 year sentence on Count 1 and 9 years sentence on Count 2, concurrent.  The total sentence on both Indictments would, therefore, be 15 years imprisonment.  Had the offences been considered in isolation then the sentence would have been higher.

Darren Leigh Roberts

Second Indictment

2 counts of:	Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Counts 1 and 2).
2 counts of:	Supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article  5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 7 and 8).
1 count of:	Being concerned in the supply a controlled drug to another contrary to Article 5 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 9).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Counts 3 and 4).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Counts 5 and 6).

Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 covered by the counts already charged and will be held on file to be referred to if defendant returns to Court.

Age:  21.

Plea: On Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 Not Guilty.  Counts 7, 8 and 9 Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hume above.

Details of Mitigation:

He was second in line in terms of level of involvement in this drugs transaction.  He had the benefit, in the Crown's view, of substantial mitigation.  He was fully co-operative with the Police and entered guilty pleas.  He did not have the benefit of good character but had the benefit of youth.  He had expressed remorse for his own involvement and also for the fact that he had involved some of his friends.  The Defence suggested that he was unemployed at the time and had a difficult background.  He was asked to collect the drugs but nothing had been pre-planned.  He had been promised a sum of £10,000 to £15,000.  He was to use those monies to leave the Island to travel to get away from his problems.  He expressed regret at getting others involved.  He had written his own Indictment in relation to Count 9.  The Defence contended that regard should also be had to the totality principle for his accused.  There was a letter of remorse before the Court.

Previous Convictions:

Six previous convictions for possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply x 2.  Possession of a controlled drug x 2, shoplifting, two offences of public order and motoring offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 18 years' imprisonment).
Count 2:	8 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  (Starting point 18 years' imprisonment).
Count 7:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  (Starting point 7 years' imprisonment).
Count 8:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  (Starting point 7 years' imprisonment).
Count 9:	2 years' imprisonment, consecutive.  (Starting point 18 years' imprisonment).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point 18 years).
Count 2:	8 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	1 year's imprisonment, consecutive.

Total: 9 years' imprisonment.

The Court has to sentence six offenders.  Five are in their early mid-twenties and one, Manson, is aged 36.  There are two Indictments relating to drug offences and the Court has to consider the amount and value of those drugs and the level of involvement of each of the accused.  The First Indictment involved only Hume and was concerned with heroin and cocaine with a total quantity of 1.5 kilos and a value of half a million pounds.  The Second Indictment involved all the accused and involved Class A drugs again being heroin and Ecstasy.  There were some minor offences involving cannabis, a Class B drug.  There was a kilo of heroin and 20,000 Ecstasy tablets.  The value of those drugs was between £500,000 and £643,000.  These were substantial amounts.  The Court adopted the words of the Deputy Bailiff in the case of AG-v- Carter:  "In Jersey this is a vast amount of Class A drugs, which if it had succeeded in getting onto the streets, would have caused great damage and suffering to the local community, to the young people of our community in particular".  The principle offender was Hume.  He was a fetcher and carrier on the First Indictment and the organiser of the Second.  He had been convicted after an Assize trial.  All the other accused had pleaded guilty and thus were entitled to significant mitigation.  The Court had considered the case against each of them separately.  The Court had considered all of the reports and all of the letters and testimonials put before it.  Where appropriate the Court had considered the correct starting point and made appropriate deductions according to the role played.  It was also noted that all of the accused had been in custody for a period of between 8 and 12 months.

He was aged 21 and had a previous conviction for an involvement in drugs.  He was to be sentenced for five offences:  Counts 1 and 2: conspiracy to supply, Counts 7 and 8: supply of heroin, Count 9 being concerned in the supply of Ecstasy.  The Court put Roberts as next in line after Hume.  He was trusted by Hume.  He had taken responsibility for organising things outside.  He had taken possession and stored the drugs.  He had got others involved.  There was high risk of him re-offending.  The court fixed a starting point of 16 years.  He had pleaded guilty.  This warranted a real discount.  The court adopted the conclusions of the Crown of 8 years on Counts 1 and 2.  It also adopted the Crown's recommendation on Counts 7 and 8 of 3 years' imprisonment.  Count 9 was a separate and distinct offence.  The Crown recommended a consecutive sentence for this Count.  Advocate Juste disagreed.  The Crown and the Court gave him credit for his frankness.  The Crown had sought 2 years' imprisonment consecutive sentence on Count 9 and the Court felt able to reduce that to 12 months' imprisonment making a total sentence of 9 years' imprisonment.

Steven Lewis Brookes

Second Indictment

2 counts of:	Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Counts 1 and 2).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another contrary to Article 8 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Counts 10 and 11).
2 counts of :	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Counts 12 and 13).

Counts 10, 11, 12 and 13 covered by counts already charged and will be held on file to be referred to if the defendant returns to Court.

Age:  22

Plea: Counts 10, 11, 12, 13, Not Guilty; Count 14 Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hume above.

Details of Mitigation:

In the Crown's view, Brookes' role was to act as a link between Roberts and Hume so that Hume could pass on the necessary information to Roberts for the onward division and distribution of drugs.  Brookes had substantial mitigation available to him.  He was entitled to the full one third reduction for his guilty pleas which were entered on an early occasion.  He had the benefit of youth and whilst he had a criminal record it was of limited relevance to his current offences.  He had expressed remorse and had produced letters of reference.  He was fully co-operative in interview.  In the Crown's view there was an exceptional piece of mitigation available to him in that he had provided a witness statement to the Police and had then given evidence in support of that witness statement at the trial of Hume.  The evidence that he gave was consistent with his witness statement.  The Crown's view was that his evidence was of considerable assistance in putting the complete picture of Hume's involvement to the case before the Jury.  It was of very significant assistance in achieving a conviction against Hume.

The Defence pleaded that Brookes was a young naïve man who craved the approval of those around him.  He had a difficult upbringing and came from a dysfunctional family.  The Defence suggested a starting point of 15 years' imprisonment.  The Defence agreed that he had substantial mitigation.  He had entered early guilty pleas and he had the advantage of youth.  His imprisonment to date had acted as a salutary lesson.  His criminal record was relatively minor and committed whilst a juvenile.  He had expressed remorse and provided references.  He had been co-operative in interview.  He did have the benefit of the exceptional mitigation by virtue of his giving evidence.  He had been moved to the VPU unit in consequence.  He was still receiving threats from other inmates on a daily basis.  The Defence requested as lenient sentence as possible.

Previous Convictions:

Three previous convictions all as a juvenile for shoplifting and obtaining property by deception and possession of cannabis resin.

Conclusions:

Second Indictment

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  16 years).
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total sentence: 3 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Second Indictment

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.  (Starting point:  14 years).
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

The Court has to sentence six offenders.  Five are in their early mid-twenties and one, Manson, is aged 36.  There are two Indictments relating to drug offences and the Court has to consider the amount and value of those drugs and the level of involvement of each of the accused.  The First Indictment involved only Hume and was concerned with heroin and cocaine with a total quantity of 1.5 kilos and a value of half a million pounds.  The Second Indictment involved all the accused and involved Class A drugs again being heroin and Ecstasy.  There were some minor offences involving cannabis, a Class B drug.  There was a kilo of heroin and 20,000 Ecstasy tablets.  The value of those drugs was between £500,000 and £643,000.  These were substantial amounts.  The Court adopted the words of the Deputy Bailiff in the case of AG-v- Carter:  "In Jersey this is a vast amount of Class A drugs, which if it had succeeded in getting onto the streets, would have caused great damage and suffering to the local community, to the young people of our community in particular".  The principle offender was Hume.  He was a fetcher and carrier on the First Indictment and the organiser of the Second.  He had been convicted after an Assize trial.  All the other accused had pleaded guilty and thus were entitled to significant mitigation.  The Court had considered the case against each of them separately.  The Court had considered all of the reports and all of the letters and testimonials put before it.  Where appropriate the Court had considered the correct starting point and made appropriate deductions according to the role played.  It was also noted that all of the accused had been in custody for a period of between 8 and 12 months.

He was aged 22 and had committed two serious offences of conspiracy.  The Court had read the letters handed up.  The Crown had taken a starting point of 16 years.  The Court felt that one of 14 years was appropriate.  He had substantial mitigation in the form of his youth, guilty pleas and he had been of great assistance to the Police and taken great courage to give evidence in Court.  He expressed remorse and he was to be commended by the Court for his co-operation and frankness.  The Crown recognised these factors by a three year sentence.  The Court agreed substantial discount should be given for his co-operation.  He played an important role in visiting Hume and passing on information.  A sentence was imposed of 2 years imprisonment.  No separate sentence for the cannabis.

Adam William Blampied

Second Indictment

2 counts of:	Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug to another, contrary to Article 5 (c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Counts 15 and 16).
3 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Counts 17, 18 and 19).

Counts 17 and 18 covered by counts already charged and will be held on file to be referred to if the defendant returns to Court.

Age:  21.

Plea: Counts 15, 16 and 19 Guilty; Counts 17 and 18 Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hume above

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown did not approach sentence upon Blampied on the basis of a starting point approach.  It looked at the overall criminality of Blampied.  He was involved because he was a friend of Roberts.  He knew that the enterprise involved drugs but did not know that the bags contained heroin or Ecstasy.  He did not know the quantities involved.  He was not to receive payment for his involvement.  He was identified as being on the peripheral of the matter.  He had the benefit of guilty pleas, youth and good character.  He was co-operative in interview and had expressed remorse.  A number of letters and references in support of his good character had been provided to the Court.

The Defence emphasised the above mitigating points.   It was submitted that Blampied had committed a grave error of judgment by helping his friends.  He had a place at University waiting for him.  He had spent a considerable period on remand equivalent to a sentence of one year, 13 days.  He had received threats in Prison.  On the basis of the references he was unlikely to re-offend.  It was suggested that on the basis of the mitigation a sentence which would achieve immediate release was appropriate or alternative a suspended sentence.  As a third alternative Community Service was available.

Previous Convictions:

No record.

Conclusions:

Second Indictment

Count 15:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 16:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Second Indictment

Count 15:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 16:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 19:	1 week's imprisonment, all concurrent.

Total: 12 months' imprisonment.

He was aged 21 and of previous good character.  Two offences of being concerned and a minor offence of possession of cannabis.  He had become involved through Roberts and had driven Roberts and Brookes to the Prison.  He had come to know the purpose of the visit was concerned with drugs.  He had strong mitigation in for the form of youth, previous good character, plea and having played a subsidiary role.  The Court accepted the letters which made it clear that he had a promising future.  The reports spoke of him in terms of being at low risk.  He was suitable for Community Service.  The Crown moved for 2 years' imprisonment.  The Court was minded to take a lenient approach and impose a 12 month term of sentence which would allow for his immediate release.

Ian Monteith Manson

Second Indictment

2 counts of:

Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug to another, contrary to Article 5 (c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Counts 20 and 21).

Age:  36.

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

See: Hume above

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown did not adopt a "starting point" approach.  Manson was also on the peripheral but had played an important role as acting as a "minder" or a "bit of muscle".  Manson knew what he was getting involved in, in that he knew that Roberts was collecting drugs and he did so on the basis that he would receive payment or reward in the form of a personal amount of heroin.  He had the benefit of his guilty pleas which were entered on an early occasion and whilst he had initially lied in interview to the Police he had eventually been co-operative.  He did not have the benefit of either youth or good character.  Reference had been provided on his behalf. 

The Defence contended that he appropriate sentence was a non-custodial sentence.  Reliance was placed upon the reports produced.  His peripheral involvement was emphasised and that there was nothing to distinguish between Manson's involvement and Blampied's involvement.  There had been no pre-planning on the part of Manson to be involved, it was a spontaneous decision to help his friend, Roberts.  His record was such that it should not prevent or deter a non-custodial sentence being imposed in this case.  A Probation/Treatment Order and/or Community Service was suggested.

Previous Convictions:

Sixteen previous offences for larceny, burglary, assault, breach of bail, public order offences, possession of controlled drug and motoring offences.

Conclusions:

Second Indictment

Count 20:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 21:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Manson was aged 36 and was the eldest of all the Defendants.  He had pleaded guilty.  He had many previous convictions for dishonesty and one previous for drugs.  He fell to be sentenced for two offences of being concerned in the supply of heroin and Ecstasy.  His role was that of a minder to Roberts when he collected the drugs.  The involvement was short lived - about 45 minutes.  The Court had read the letters and had regard to the Social Enquiry Report.  It was noted that he was at high risk of re-offending.  However, from the Alcohol and Drug Report it was noted that a considerable effort had been made by him to overcome his heroin addiction.  The Court proposed to follow the recommendations.  If it had been a Prison sentence, then it would have been 2½ years.  The sentence of the Court was a Probation Order for two years together with the attendance at the Alcohol and Drugs Service.  He also had a warning that any further offending would result in him being re-sentenced.

Second Indictment

Count 20:	24 months' probation.
Count 21:	24 months' probation.

Sarah Louise Traylen

Second Indictment

2 counts of:	Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug to another, contrary to Article 5 (c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Counts 20 and 21).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. (Counts 22.).

Counts 20 and 21 covered by the Court already charged and will be held on file to be referred to if the defendant returns to Court.

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See: Hume above.

Details of Mitigation:

In the Crown's view Traylen was a young first offender and had the benefit of good character.  From the background reports it appeared that she had a troubled past.  She had a number of drug related problems which she was endeavouring to confront.  The Crown followed the recommendation contained within the Social Enquiry Report for a financial penalty to be imposed.  The Defence pleaded her age and the fact that she was of previous good character.  She was no longer involved engaged to her co-accused, Manson.  Her plan was to leave the Island to live with her father in the UK.  She was now clear of drugs.  Any financial penalty would have to be small because of her limited financial circumstances and the defence recommended an alternative sentence of a Binding Over Order.

Previous Convictions:

No record.

Conclusions:

Second Indictment

Count 22:

£200 or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default..

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Second Indictment

Count 22:

£100 or 1 week's imprisonment in default..

She was aged 26.  She pleaded guilty and was of previous good character.  She had pleaded guilty to a charge of simple possession of heroin.  It could have been dealt with within the Magistrate's Court jurisdiction and it was unfortunate that she had to wait this long.  The court proposed to fine her £100 with one week default.

The Court ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

The Court had also made the nominal Confiscation Order as against Roberts.

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for G.P. Hume.

Advocate R. C. L. Juste for D.L. Roberts.

Advocate A. J. Clarke for S.L. Brookes.

Advocate D. E. Le Cornu for A.W. Blampied.

Advocate W. Grace for I.M. Manson.

Advocate J. M. Grace for S.L. Traylen.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        We have to sentence six Defendants five of whom are aged in their early to mid-twenties, one of whom, Ian Manson, is aged thirty-six.  The offences are all drug offences.  They are charged in two indictments and it is necessary for us to consider the amount and value of the drugs involved, as well as the role played by each defendant.

2.        The first indictment concerns only the defendant, Hume.  It relates to Class A drugs, heroin and cocaine.  The amounts and values are substantial.  1.5 kilos of heroin with a street value of half a million pounds, with a wholesale value of about half that amount.  The second indictment involves all the defendants.  It relates mainly to Class A drugs, heroin and ecstasy, though some offences relate only to Class B cannabis. 

3.        The Class A drugs amount to a kilo of heroin and about 20,000 Ecstasy tablets with a total value on the streets of between half a million and six hundred and forty-three thousand pounds.  So here too the amounts in terms of drugs and value are substantial.  We adopt the words of the Deputy Bailiff in an earlier case: 

"In Jersey terms this is a vast amount of Class A drugs which if it had succeeded in getting on to the streets would have caused great damage and suffering to the local community and to the young people of the community in particular". 

4.        The Court has no doubt that the principal offender is Gareth Hume.  He was a fetcher and carrier in the first indictment, but, despite the fact that he was by that time in prison, he was the organiser in the second indictment and he orchestrated the movement and distribution of the drugs by means of a mobile telephone which he unlawfully had in his possession.  Hume was convicted after assize trials.  The remaining defendants all pleaded guilty and they will receive significant discounts or reductions in their sentence on that account.

5.        We have considered the cases of each defendant separately, and we shall sentence each one separately.  In each case the Court has read Social Enquiry Reports and where applicable, Drug and Alcohol Reports, and all the letters and testimonials which have been placed before us.  Where possible the Court has considered the appropriate starting point for each sentence and has made proper adjustments and reductions to reflect the individual characters of each defendant and the role he or she played.  We bear in mind that most of the defendants have been in custody now for over eight months the equivalent of just over a 12 months' sentence.

6.        Hume, you are aged 24.  You have two other convictions for possession with intent to supply or for supplying drugs; so you have no mitigation for good character, certainly not for the Second Indictment though you had on occasion of the First.   You do not have the advantage of a plea of guilty.  We have read letters from your family and friends. 

7.        The Court has to sentence you for a total of 4 offences.  On the First Indictment, two of attempting to incite another to commit an offence, namely to supply class A drugs.  On the first count, heroin and in the second count, cocaine.  As you have heard the Court say the amounts and volumes of the drugs was substantial.  However, the role you played in that indictment was as the Crown concedes not that of an organiser but of a runner. 

8.        You were sentenced for those offences by the Superior Number after a previous trial.  They adopted a starting point of 16 years and 14 years respectively and imposed a total sentence of 11 years.  We are not bound by that decision and we approach the matter afresh.  In any event we have an additional indictment to consider where you played a more leading role. 

9.        We have to have regard to the principle of totality of the sentence we impose.  We adopt the same starting points as before, that is to say 16 and 14 years.  However, we adjust the sentences in accordance with the principle we have just enunciated.  But for that principle and taken in isolation this indictment would have attracted a sentence of 11 years on the first count and 5 years on the second, but in view of the totality principle we adjust those sentences to 6 years and 4 years concurrent.  A total therefore on that indictment of 6 years' imprisonment. 

10.      The remaining two offences are those of which you were convicted on the Second Indictment by which time you were a serving prisoner.  That fact did not deter you let alone reform you, but you determinedly continued to deal in drugs this time on a leading basis and in a conspiratorial role.  The starting point as suggested by the Crown is 21 years in each case. 

11.      We think having regard to the guideline cases that a starting point of 18 years would be appropriate and that is the figure we adopt.  Mitigation in your case is difficult to find.  You have no good character and no plea of guilty to help you.  According to the Social Enquiry Report you are still maintaining your innocence.  This was a brazen and determined attempt to orchestrate the distribution of drugs. 

12.      The fact that it was done from prison shows, as we have said, no remorse and absolutely no respect for the law, and but for the totality principle, a sentence in the region of 16 years would be appropriate.  As it is we reduce the sentence on this Indictment to 9 years and 9 years concurrent.  They will be consecutive with the sentences on the First Indictment and therefore the total sentence in your case is one of 15 years' imprisonment. 

13.      We have, I hope, made it sufficiently plain that had these indictments been considered in isolation, the sentences individually would have been higher.  It is only because we stand back and look at the total sentence that we reduce it to one of 15 years' imprisonment.

14.      Roberts you are aged 21, you have a previous conviction for possession of drugs with intent to supply.  The Court has to sentence you for five offences.  On Counts 1 and 2 conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, heroin and ecstasy respectively.  On Counts 7 and 8 two offences of supplying heroin and Count 9 being concerned in the supplying of drugs to another.  The Court places you as does the Crown next in line to Hume in these drugs dealings. 

15.      It is clear that you were trusted by him and you took responsibility for organising things outside prison.  You took possession of the drugs, you stored them and you arranged for the participation of other people in various roles.  It was through you that at least two other defendants became involved in all this.  You were to receive a substantial reward.  The Social Enquiry Report describes your difficult childhood and background.  You are assessed as being at a high risk of re-offending. 

16.      Having regard to the case of AG -v- Carter and Ors [2005] JRC 051 which has been cited to us we adopt a starting point of 16 years in your case.  As to mitigation you have some strong mitigation for your plea of guilty and having regard to your youth and that adds up to a real discount in sentence.  So far as Counts 1 and 2 are concerned the Court agrees with the Crown's conclusion of 8 years' imprisonment, that is to say for conspiracy to supply drugs.

17.      We have read your letter setting out your explanation for having become involved.  On Counts 7 and 8 for supplying small amounts of heroin for personal use to co-defendants again the Court adopts the Crown recommendations.  Both the starting point and the actual sentence are accordingly reduced to 7 years for the starting point and 3 years for the actual sentences.  Those sentences will be concurrent with each other and with the sentences imposed on Counts 1 and 2. 

18.      Count 9 is in a different context.  That offence was only revealed by you at interview.  It represents quite a separate and distinct offence from the other offences to which you have just been sentenced.  The Crown therefore submits that the sentence on this offence should be consecutive, but your advocate, Advocate Juste, disagrees.  The Crown and indeed the Court give you credit for your frankness and are able to reduce the sentence considerably.  The Crown proposes a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment, consecutive for this offence.  While it must remain consecutive, because this was a quite distinct offence, the Court proposes to reduce the sentence to one of 1 year's imprisonment.  The total in your case is, therefore, one of 9 years' imprisonment.

19.      Brookes, you are aged 22, you are to be sentenced for two serious offences of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, heroin and ecstasy, and also for a much lesser offence possession of cannabis.  Your previous convictions can be disregarded as being minor and some time ago.  We have letters from you expressing your remorse and from your family and from former employers and we have read and taken account of what they say. 

20.      The starting point is expressed by the Crown as being 16 years.  The Court considers that a starting point of 14 years would be appropriate.  You have substantial mitigation available.  First, your youth.  Second, your plea of guilty; and third, and in particular, you have been of great assistance to the police and have had the courage to tell the truth and to give evidence for the prosecution.  You have expressed remorse for your offences.  You are to be commended by the Court for your co-operation and frankness and that will be reflected in the sentence the Court imposes.  The Crown recognises these factors.  They move for a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.  This represents a considerable discount from the starting point for the sentence whether it be 16 or 14 years' imprisonment.  The Court agrees that a substantial discount should be given to you. 

21.      The Social Enquiry Report describes your difficult up bringing, but the Probation Officer feels unable to make any recommendation.  The Court has no doubt that you played a pivotal role by visiting Hume in prison and by passing on information which he gave you.  As we have indicated we regard the appropriate starting point as 14 years.  The sentence allowing for your considerable mitigation is one of 2 years' imprisonment.  For the possession of cannabis we impose no separate sentence.

22.      Blampied, you are 21 and of previous good character.  You are here to be sentenced for two offences of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, in the one case heroin and the other ecstasy and a third minor offence for possession of cannabis.  You became involved through Roberts who asked you to drive him and Brookes to the prison where there was an inmate.  You came to know that the purpose of the visit was in connection with drugs, though you were not aware of the full extent of them.

23.      You have strong mitigation.  Your youth, your previous good character and your plea of guilty.  You played a subsidiary role.  We have read a number of documents placed before us including a contrite letter from you, a letter from Roberts himself and many testimonials.  We are told and we accept that you have had a good education and you have a promising future.  It is a very great pity that you have allowed yourself to become involved in these offences.

24.      The Social Enquiry Report assesses you as being of a low risk of re-offending.  The Probation Officer assesses you as suitable for community service as a direct alternative to prison.  The starting point is not appropriate in this case due to the wide variety of circumstances in which such cases occur.  The Crown move for a prison sentence of 2 years.  However, you have already served the equivalent of just over 1 year.  The Court is disposed to show you leniency and to take a course which will allow you to pursue your studies at university.  The Court, therefore, imposes a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment which will allow for your immediate release.

25.      Manson you are aged 36 and are thereby by far the oldest of all the defendants.  You pleaded guilty.  You have many previous convictions mainly for dishonesty, though one was for possession of a controlled drug.  We note that you were only fined £100 for that offence.  You are to be sentenced for two offences of being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs.  In the first case heroin and the second case ecstasy. 

26.      The role you played was as a minder to Roberts when he collected drugs.  Your involvement was short lived, about 45 minutes.  We have read your letter to the Court and a number of references.  The Social Enquiry Report describes you as being at high risk of re-offending.  Nevertheless, the Probation Officer recommends as an alternative to custody a probation order for 12 months with a 12 month treatment order.  This is based on a recommendation contained in the Alcohol and Drugs Service Report.  We note that according to that Report you have made a concerted effort to overcome your heroin addiction. 

27.      The Court proposes to follow those recommendations having regard to the fact that you have already spent a significant time in custody.  We make it plain that if we had been minded to impose a prison sentence it would have been for a period of 2½ years.  As it is the order of the Court is that you be placed on probation for a period of 2 years not 12 months as mentioned in the Report and that in addition you must attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service for treatment.  You must abide by the reasonable directions of your Probation Officer.  The Court warns you if you fail to comply with the terms of the order, or if you commit any other offence during its currency you will be brought back to Court and you may then be sentenced for the original offence.

28.      Traylen, you are aged 26, you have pleaded guilty so you have those mitigations in your favour together with the fact that you are of previous good character.  You are here for simple possession of heroin.  It should have been dealt with by the Magistrates and it is most unfortunate, in our view that you have had to wait all this time to be sentences. 

29.      We have been asked to consider either a fine or binding you over to be of good behaviour.  But having regard to the fact that you may be returning to England it seems to us the second alternative would be inappropriate.  What we propose to do is fine you £100, 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.

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

Authorities

AG -v- Carter and Ors [2005] JRC 051.