Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC179

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

5^th December 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Tibbo, Bullen, Allo, Clapham and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Thomas Derek Mawer

And

Michael Anthony Waite

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

Thomas Derek Mawer

 

1 count of:	Conspiracy to contravene Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8 (2) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8 (2) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Count 3).

Age:  27

Plea: Guilty (Count 1) (Counts 2 and 3 fall away).

Details of Offence:

Agreement to supply 5 ounces of heroin.  Profits to be split 80% as to Waite and 20% as to Mawer.  Waite brought heroin to Jersey twice on domestic flights from the UK.  Mawer's job was to sell it for him in Jersey.  The conspirators had supplied an ounce and were into their second ounce by the time they were arrested.  Waite was the boss of the venture.  Waite had previously served a 54 month prison sentence in UK for supplying heroin and crack cocaine.  He was on licence for that sentence when he committed the Jersey offence.  He was not himself a drug user or addict.  He was motivated by the desire to make substantial profits.  The Crown described him as a professional drug dealer.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; first conviction for trafficking; some sign of a desire to change his life.

Previous Convictions:

Breaking and entering; possession of a controlled drug (heroin); theft; shoplifting; burglary.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

6 years' imprisonment

Confiscation Order in the amount of £1,209.89 sought or 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive in default.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Michael Anthony Waite

 

1 count of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.  (Count 1).

Age:  41

Plea: Not Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See above for Mawer.

Details of Mitigation:

None.

Previous Convictions:

Theft; having in a public place an offensive weapon; supplying heroin; supplying crack cocaine; possession of heroin.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

11 years' imprisonment

Confiscation Order in the amount of £5,658.16 sought or 12 months' imprisonment, consecutive in default.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for Mawer.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Waite.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The two defendants in this case agreed to import heroin into Jersey and sell it.  The heroin was obtained by Waite in England and was brought over to Jersey by him where it was sold to retail users by Mawer.  The profit was to be split 80%/20% in Waite's favour. 

2.        The plan was put into operation.  The figures suggest that by the time of their arrest about 1 ounce had already been sold and the defendants were beginning to sell further amounts.  The document recording the conspiracy suggests a plan to sell up to 5 ounces, that is 140 grams, and the envisaged profit was some £67,000. 

3.        Both defence counsel agree that the appropriate band in the leading case of Rimmer, Lusk  and Bade -v- AG [2001] JLR 373 is that which concerns 100 - 250 grams where the starting points are given as between 10 and 13 years.

4.        Waite, you were the organiser, you were to get 80% of the profits and you entered this transaction entirely for financial gain as you are not an addict yourself.  Furthermore, it is not the first time that you've been involved in drug dealing.  In November 2001 you were sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment in England for supplying heroin and crack cocaine. 

5.        In this case the Crown has suggested a starting point of 12 years' imprisonment.  We have listened to the submissions of your counsel but we are quite satisfied that 12 years is correct having regard to the amount and subject of the conspiracy of which the jury found you guilty and also having regard to your rôle as organiser of this conspiracy.  As to mitigation there is very little.  The Court has considered whether in fact there is any deduction to be made from the starting point, but has on balance considered that it should accede to the suggestion of the Crown.

6.        Waite, the sentence in your case is one of 11 years' imprisonment and we impose 1 year's imprisonment consecutive in default of the confiscation order.

7.        In the case of Mawer we accept that you played a lesser part in this conspiracy but it is still a very important part.  You were the retail seller.  You were the one with the Jersey contacts and you did it for financial gain although it was also driven by your heroin addiction.

8.        Mrs Pearmain says that this is an exceptional case and we should therefore move outside the appropriate Rimmer guideline.  In our judgment it is not exceptional having regard to the rôle which you played and the fact that you were going to receive 20% of the profits.  We do agree with the Crown that it is right to take the bottom of the appropriate band and we therefore agree the starting point of 10 years.

9.        In mitigation, unlike your co-accused, you pleaded guilty from the outset.  In our judgment there should be a full one-third discount and this alone takes the sentence below the 7 years moved for by the Crown.  We have also read the letters of reference and we have had regard to all the other matters which Mrs Pearmain has urged before us.  We certainly accept that there is a good side to you.  We note you have been using your time constructively in prison and we think you have considerable potential for the future.  We hope you will take advantage of that and try and overcome your heroin addiction and, as we say, fulfil the potential you undoubtedly have. 

10.      Nevertheless, this was a serious offence and you were heavily involved although to a far lesser extent than your co-accused.  In all the circumstances though we can make a greater deduction than that moved for by the Crown.

11.      Mawer, the sentence in your case is one of 6 years' imprisonment and we order 6 months' consecutive in default in respect of the confiscation order although we think that it is very unlikely to come into play given that the assets are held by the Viscount.  We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the related drug equipment and we record not guilty verdicts on Counts 2 and 3.

Authorities

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