Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC090

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

30^th April 2007

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Tibbo, Bullen, Allo, Clapham, Le Cornu and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

Karen Marie Atkinson

Ames William Fitzgerald

Cedric Alan William Smith

Philip Clare

Philip Edward Goldstone

Daniel Robert Hennessey

Mark Shaw

Donald Walter Goodman

Khazara Khan

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court following conviction and guilty pleas to the following charges:

Karen Marie Atkinson

First Indictment

2 counts of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 61(2) (b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999. (Counts 1 and 4).

Age:  38.

Plea: Not Guilty (Count 4) and convicted at an assize held on the 19^th March 2007, Not Guilty (Count 1 - kept on file).

Details of Offence:

Count 4

On the 23^rd March, 2006, Atkinson and Gyimah (a co-accused who was not before the Court) arrived in Jersey.  They were kept under surveillance throughout their stay.  In particular covert tape recordings were made of conversations occurring within Atkinson's hotel room.  Atkinson and Gyimah met with Goldstone and Fitzgerald.  Atkinson was the organiser and facilitator of an importation of 10 kilos of cannabis resin which occurred on the 31^st March, 2006 and which was brought in concealed within a spare tyre in a vehicle driven by Smith.  The surveillance evidence revealed numerous meetings between the Defendants and the covert tape recordings revealed conversations discussing large sums of money and the spending of such sums of money and the sending of such sums of money to the United Kingdom.  There were numerous conversations involving how numerous large sums of money were to be shared out and what Atkinson and others' entitlement were to be.  There were discussions about delays, or the boat being cancelled, about how it was not safe to use the telephone, how someone was being followed by the Police and how this was to be the last one that so many people were to be involved in.  There were references within the transcripts to monies having been sent.  Whilst in Jersey a number of money transfers were made by Atkinson and Gyimah and by Fitzgerald on behalf of Atkinson.  One money transfer was sent by Gyimah to Smith in the sum of £500.  The receipt for that transfer was found on Smith at the time of his arrest.

10 kilos of cannabis resin has a wholesale value in Jersey of between £30,000 and £40,000 and a street value of £57,600.

Atkinson pleaded not guilty and a trial before an Assize took place.  She was found unanimously guilty.  The other Defendants had entered guilty pleas and had put forward, in some instances, a factual basis for their pleas.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown's view of Atkinson was that she was the organiser and facilitator of the 10 kilo importation.  The Crown took a "starting point" of 8 years.  In terms of mitigation she had the benefit of good character which the Crown viewed as her principal mitigating factor.  She did not have the benefit of a guilty plea nor youth nor remorse.  The information contained with her Social Enquiry Report and the character references did not provide any exceptional substantial mitigation in the Crown's view.

The Defence put forward her family background as part of her mitigation and letters of support were put forward.  It was contended that she was a hard working woman of Christian morals who was heavily involved in her local Church.  It was contended that she got mixed up with a group of men who had used her in their drug dealing.  It was further contended that the total amount of cannabis resin involved was 9.6 kilos and that the Crown had rounded it up to 10 kilos and in consequence the "starting point" was between 4½ and 5 years.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Starting point 8 years.

Count 4:

7 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order £90.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 7 years.

Count 4:

6 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order £90.

The Court was sentencing nine Defendants for a number of drug offences which occurred between January and November, 2006.  £154,000 of cannabis had been imported and £55,000 worth of heroin.  The Court summarised the facts on each of the Indictments.  The Court noted that the policy for the sentencing of those involved in the importation of drugs was well established by Campbell.  Extracts from the Judgment were read.  The court then dealt with each of the accused in turn.

The Court accepted that she was an organiser and facilitator.  She oversaw an importation of 10 kilos of cannabis.  The transcripts revealed the transfer of large sums of money and discussions as to how large sums of money were to be shared out.  10 kilos of cannabis was at the top end of the first band and the start of the second band.  The Court was correct to view her involvement as high.  The Crown rejected Defence Counsel's submissions that the guidelines were restrictive as to the amount.  The Court was entitled to suggest a "starting point" based on the level of involvement of the Defendant.  They set the "starting point" at 7 years.

James William Fitzgerald

First Indictment

2 counts of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999. (Counts 1 and 4).

Second Indictment

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) Law, 1999. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 5).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 6).

Age:  53.

Plea: Guilty (First Indictment Counts 1 and 4, and Second Indictment Count 6).  Not Guilty (Second Indictment Counts 1 and 5 - kept on file).

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

Count 1

On the 10^th March, 2006 an unknown quantity of cannabis resin was imported into Jersey concealed within the spare tyre of a vehicle.  Fitzgerald, during interview under caution, admitted that he had received 5 kilos of cannabis resin from a consignment which had been imported on that date and which he had then subsequently distributed.   He subsequently stated that he had received this quantity of cannabis resin not in one go but in a number of drops over a period of time from another person and he was asked to sell it.  He sold the cannabis resin receiving in total £16,000 from which he retained £1,000.  He passed on the balance of £15,000 on the basis of instructions received by him.  Five kilos of cannabis resin had a wholesale value of between £3,000 and £4,000 per kilo giving a value of between £15,000 and £20,000.  The street value for 5 kilos would have been £28,800.

Count 4:  See Atkinson above

Fitzgerald claimed that he did not know the quantity of cannabis resin to be imported or the identity of the importer.  His role was simply to sell the cannabis resin.  He contended that he was only to be entrusted with 5 kilos of cannabis resin.

Second Indictment

Count 6

He admitted that he was going to collect a quantity of heroin and admitted that he had agreed to pay £3,000 per kilo.  He contended that he was then going to take and simply distribute the 3 kilos which were in the carrier bag at the time of his arrest.

Details of Mitigation:

In the Crown's view he had pleaded guilty to 3 specific and separate offences involving specific quantities of cannabis.  The Crown adopted the sentencing stance taken in the case of AG -v- Gaish.  The total amount of cannabis resin involved with Fitzgerald was 13 kilos.  An appropriate "starting point" was, therefore, one of 8 years.  He did not have mitigation for youth.  He had a criminal record but it was of a historical nature and the Crown treated him as a man of good character.  He had pleaded guilty albeit he was not entitled to the full one third credit on the Second Indictment as he had been caught red handed.  The evidence against him was also very strong, if not overwhelming, given the covert recordings on Count 4 on the First Indictment.  He was entitled to credit for his admissions in relation to Count 1 on the First Indictment.  It was, however, the Crown's respectful view that a Defendant cannot claim or expect to receive credit for initial full and frank admissions which thereafter, for whatever reasons, are diluted or subsequently diminished.

The Defence agreed that the sentencing approach in AG -v- Gaish was the appropriate one and that Fitzgerald should be sentenced on the basis of his involvement in 13 kilos of cannabis.  The Defence contended that the "starting point" should be one of 7 years.  His previous lack of record was emphasised.  He wrote his own Indictment in relation to Count 1 on the First Indictment.  He had the benefit of his guilty pleas.  References confirming his work record were also handed up.  It was suggested that an appropriate sentence was one of 3 to 4 years.

Previous Convictions:

7 convictions for 10 offences including burglary, indecent exposure, shoplifting, violence (all historical).

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Starting point 8 years.

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Starting point 8 years.

Count 6:

5 years; imprisonment, concurrent with First Indictment.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction order sought.

Confiscation order £120.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

He had pleaded guilty to Count 1 and Count 4 on the First Indictment and Count 6 on the Second Indictment.  He was involved with 13 kilos of cannabis.  He also had transferred money.  The Court applied Gaish.  The "starting point" was one of 8 years.  He was treated as a man of good character.  He was caught "red handed" in relation to Count 6.  Credit for co-operation on Count 1.  His initial co-operation had been diluted and diminished.

Conclusions granted.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered on Second Indictment.

Confiscation order £120.

Cedric Alan William Smith

First Indictment

2 counts of:

Conspiracy to contravene Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999. (Counts 1 and 4).

Third Indictment

2 counts 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) Law, 1999. (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  49.

Plea: Guilty (First Indictment, Count 4 and Third Indictment Counts 1 and 2), Not Guilty (First Indictment, Count 1 - kept on file).

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

Count 4:  See Atkinson above

Smith in interviews denied having any knowledge of the 10 kilos of cannabis resin concealed within the spare tyre and he could offer no explanation as to how it got there.  He stated that the £500 money transfer sent to him had been simply money owed to him.

Third Indictment

Counts 1 and 2

Smith, following his arrest in relation to Count 4 on the First Indictment, was granted bail by the Magistrate's Court.  Whilst on bail on the 15^th November, 2006 he travelled by Ferry to Jersey with Khan.  Having arrived in Jersey they then booked into a hotel.  They walked into Town and went to a local restaurant.  They were seen to pass a carrier bag to a third party but upon enquiries it revealed that this was entirely innocent.  However, the Police fearing that a drugs transaction had taken place arrested Smith and Khan in the restaurant.  A sausage shaped package wrapped in two sanitary towels was discovered under the seats where Smith and Khan had been sitting.  Upon analysis it was found to contain 55.47 grams of heroin which contained 51% by weight of diamorphine and 3.8 grams of cannabis resin.  The heroin had a wholesale value of between £8,000 and £11,000 and a street value of £55,000.  The cannabis, which was a personal quantity, had a value of between £15 and £20.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown's approach to sentencing was to consider each Count separately and then to consider whether, and if so, to what extent any deductions were appropriate to be made from the individual sentences imposed in the light of he totality principle.  Count 4 on the first Indictment involved 10 kilos of cannabis resin and the Crown's view was that the correct "starting point" was one of 7 years' imprisonment.  On the Third Indictment, Count 1 being 55 grams of heroin the Crown took a "starting point" of 10 years' imprisonment.  This was Smith's second offence as a courier and the Crown viewed him as a professional courier.  He did not have the benefit of youth or good character.  He had pleaded guilty albeit that the one third reduction was not applicable because he had been caught "red-handed".  He was not co-operative with the Police.  It was suggested that he had been threatened to undertake the second importation (Third Indictment) and the Crown's view was that those who involved themselves in the drugs world accept as a necessary risk the making of threats, if not, acts of violence and, therefore, this did not give rise to any mitigation.  When moving for conclusions the Crown made a deduction for totality.  (6 months off, on Count 4 on the First Indictment and 18 months off Count 1 on the Third Indictment).

The Defence contended that his offending arose out of his gambling habit which was a disease that he had suffered from for 30 years.  He was capable of losing a year's earnings in a couple of days.  He had run up a debt of about £15,000 which had then been passed onto others who asked him to carry out the 10 kilo importation of cannabis resin.  He was simply a courier.  Having then been granted bail those people who had organised the first importation were angry and, therefore, he was threatened to undertake the heroin importation.  Once again he acted as a courier only.  He had the benefit of a guilty plea.  He had served in the Army and had regular employment.  His offences were generally historical, it was suggested.  The Defence suggested a "starting point" of 7 years for the cannabis resin and 9 years for the heroin.  Following the application of the totality principle the Defence suggested a total sentence of 6 years' imprisonment.

Previous Convictions:

4 convictions for 8 offences including fraud, possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, offensive weapon, and possession of cannabis.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Starting point 7 years.

Count 4:

4 years' imprisonment.

Third Indictment

Starting point 10 years.

Count 1:	5 years; imprisonment, consecutive with Count 4 of First Indictment.
Count 2	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent with Count 1 and Count 4 of First Indictment.

Total: 9 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Confiscation Order £277.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

He had been involved in 2 importations both of which had been sophisticated.  For the cannabis the "starting point" would be one of 6 years and for the heroin 9 years' imprisonment.  Credit for the guilty plea had been dismissed by the fact that he had been caught "red-handed" on both occasions.  He was un-co-operative.  There was no mitigation for the suggestion of threats as violence were a part of drug trafficking.  He did not have the benefit of youth.  The Court agreed with the Crown's approach to treat the offences separately and then consider the totality.

First Indictment

Starting point 6 years.

Count 4:

3½ years' imprisonment.

Third Indictment

Starting point 9 years.

Count 1:	5 years; imprisonment, consecutive with First Indictment.
Count 2	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent with Count 1 and First Indictment.

Total: 8½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered on Third Indictment.

Confiscation Order £277.

Philip Clare

First Indictment

1 count of:	Assisting another to obtain the benefit of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 37(1)(a) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law, 1988. (Count 2).
1 count of:	Driving a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956. (Count 3).

Age:  47.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 2

On 7^th February, 2006, Clare transferred the sum of £3,000 into Edmond Atkinson's Bank account in England.  He had been handed the money and a completed paying in slip by Fitzgerald which Clare then signed.  On the 17^th February, 2006, he transferred the sum of £2,400 into the same Bank account.  Once again the cash and the paying in slip had been provided by Fitzgerald but was signed by Clare.  Clare admitted that he suspected that the funds were "dodgy" but only in relation to the second payment and that he was sentenced on the basis of the assisting in the transfer of £2,400.

Count 3

Whilst on bail for Count 2, Clare was arrested for being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst having a breath reading in excess of the prescribed limit.  The lowest reading was 108 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown's position was that offences under the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 were not susceptible to a "starting point" approach.  The Crown had regard to the case of AG -v- Morgan.  Clare was a man of good character and aged 47.  He had been co-operative in interview and pleaded guilty.  He had generally been on bail throughout.  He had re-offended with the drunk in charge offence.  Assisting another to obtain the benefit of drug trafficking was a serious offence and the Crown's stance was that a custodial sentence was warranted.  He was however, to be sentenced only on the basis of the second payment of £2,400.

The Defence contended that Clare had been stupid to become involved and to help his friend, Fitzgerald.  He then became suspicious that the monies were dodgy on the second transaction.  He entered an early guilty plea and had been remorseful.  The offences have been hanging over his head for a year.  He had a good work record.  The Defence suggested that the circumstances were sufficient to justify a non-custodial sentence.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.

Total: 19 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order £1.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

He played a limited specific role but an important one.  The transfer of drugs proceeds out of the jurisdiction was a serious offence.  There were no guidelines in terms of a "starting point".  A further offence was committed whilst on bail.  He had good character but no youth.  Co-operative and pleaded guilty.  On bail throughout with a substantial delay.  The Court felt able to spare him Prison.

Count 2:	180 hours' Community Service Order or 12 months' imprisonment in default.
Count 3:	50 hours' Community Service Order or 1 month's imprisonment in default, consecutive.

Total: 230 hours' Community Service Order or 13 months' imprisonment in default.

He was warned that he was being given an opportunity and if he failed to take it or re-offended then that would be the custodial sentence he would serve.

Confiscation Order £1.

Philip Edward Goldstone

First Indictment

1 count of:	Conspiracy to contravene Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999. (Count 4).
1 count of:	Driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956. (Count 5).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law, 1948. (Count 6).
1 count of:	Driving without a licence, contrary to Article 4(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956. (Count 7).
1 count of:	Failing to provide a specimen under Article 30(1)(a), contrary to Article 30(7) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956. (Count 8).
1 count of:	Attempting to stow away on a shipping vessel, contrary to Article 71 of the Shipping (Jersey) Law, 2002. (Count 9).
1 count of:	Unauthorised presence in a restricted area of a Port facility, contrary to Regulation 16(1)(a) of the Community Provisions (Shipping and Port Facility - Security)(Jersey) Regulations, 2004. (Count 10).

Age:  45.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 4: See Atkinson above.

Goldstone asserted that his role was a limited one in that he was to introduce Atkinson to Fitzgerald and that thereafter Fitzgerald was going to be the person who would distribute the drugs in Jersey.  Goldstone received £500 for the introduction which was paid in cash to him by Fitzgerald.

10 kilos of cannabis resin has a wholesale value in Jersey of between £30,000 and £40,000 and a street value of £57,600.

Counts 5 -18 inclusive

On the 17^th March, 2006, Goldstone had appeared in the Royal Court on a Count involving the importation of 5 grams of cocaine on the basis that it was for personal use.  He was released from custody that day and was order to complete a Probation Order and Community Service Order.  Fitzgerald who was under police surveillance at that time was seen to meet up with Goldstone in a pub.  Goldstone steadily became drunk.  He was seen to leave the pub and to get into his camper van and drive off.  He drove through a set of red lights and then crashed the vehicle, causing damage to a wall and another vehicle.  He was arrested and when interviewed, admitted to having no licence and no insurance.  He also had refused to provide a breath sample following his arrest.

Goldstone was presented to the Magistrate's Court on these charges and was granted bail.  One of the conditions of which was he was not to leave the Island without the Court's permission.

Counts 9 and 10

On the evening of the 15^th April, 2006 at the Elizabeth Terminal, St Helier, Customs and Immigration Officers detained Goldstone and his girlfriend as they attempted to leave the Island for France in Goldstone's Land Rover Discovery.  Goldstone and his girlfriend were located hiding behind the rear seats.  The vehicle was being driven by another person.  Goldstone did not have a ticket for the Ferry when he was detained and they had been located in their vehicle in the restricted area of the Port Facility.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown's position was that Goldstone in relation to Count 4 on the First Indictment had played an important role in that he was the link or introduction between the English principal, Atkinson and the Jersey principal Fitzgerald.  He remained in contact on the scene throughout the remainder of Atkinson's stay in Jersey in March, 2006.  The Crown took as a "starting point" 7 years' imprisonment.  He did not have the benefit of youth or good character.  He had a bad record.  He had the benefit of his guilty pleas.  He had the benefit of the other matters contained within the documentation.  He also fell to be sentenced in relation to the motoring offences which were committed on the day that he had been released from Prison by the royal Court who had sentenced him for a personal drugs importation on 17^th March, 2006.  The Crown's view was that these sentences, whilst concurrent to each other should be consecutive to the sentence on Court 4 on the Indictment.  There was a further aggravating factor in that having been granted bail on the motoring offences, he then tried to leave the Island in clear breach of his bail conditions.  However, having regard to the totality principle the Crown decided to make the Crown's conclusions on those Counts concurrent rather than consecutive.  Goldstone also fell to be sentenced in relation to the Probation and Community Service Order imposed by the Royal Court.  He had been given a very clear warning as to the consequences of any breaches by the Royal Court.  The custodial sentence was warranted and a consecutive sentence was also warranted.  The Crown moved for the Community Service custodial equivalent to be imposed.

The Defence contended that insufficient credit had been given to him for his relevant mitigation and that the overall sentence should be one of 3½ years' imprisonment.  In relation to the cannabis importation he had limited involvement and that the correct "starting point" was one of 6 years and not 7 years.  In relation to the motoring offences the Defence suggested that the Royal Court should have regard to the Magistrate's guidelines which were imposed at the time the offences were committed and sought reductions in the individual sentences imposed.  The harbour offences were committed because he had a vehicle left in France which he wanted to collect.  He was not trying to abscond.  In relation to the breach offence, it was contended that the period of 4 months which he has spent on remand should also be taken into account although the Defence acknowledged that the Court had a discretion as to whether to allow that period of remand to be taken into account or not.

Previous Convictions:

Convictions for offences of dishonesty, criminal damage, motoring, public order, possession of Class B drug, assault, importation of Class A drug.

Conclusions:

Starting point 7 years.

Count 4:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 5:	£300 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default, concurrent.
Count 6:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	£500 fine or 6 weeks' imprisonment in default, concurrent.
Count 8:	4 months' imprisonment concurrent.
Count 9:	£1,000 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default concurrent to Count 10 but consecutive to above.
Count 10:	£1,000 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default, concurrent to Count 9, but consecutive to above.
Breach of Probation:	Admitted - 18 months' imprisonment consecutive.

Total: 4½ years' imprisonment and £2,800 fine.

Confiscation Order £1.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

He admitted being involved in the importation which took place on 31^st March, 2006 and was the link between the UK and Jersey parties.  He received £500.  The Court agreed with the Crown's assessment that this placed him close to the supplier in the UK.  The Crown used a "starting point" of 7 years.  The Court took a view that 6 years was appropriate.  There were the motoring offences at Count 6 to 8 and there was an aggravating factor that they were committed on the day of his release from Prison.  Counts 9 and 10 involved a breach of his bail conditions but the Court accepted that it would treat those as concurrent.  He did not have the benefit of youth and had a bad record.  He had pleaded guilty.  The court had regard to the documents and the reports.  In relation the Attorney General's Representation for the breach of Community Service and Probation he had been given a clear warning that day that it he committed further offences he would serve 18 months' imprisonment.  The Court had considered AG -v- Graham which said the Court had a discretion as to whether or not to make allowances for periods on remand.  The Court was not minded to exercise its discretion in his favour and he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

Starting point 6 years.

Count 4:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 5:	£300 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default, concurrent to Count 4.
Count 6:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent but consecutive to Count 4.
Count 7:	£500 fine or 6 weeks' imprisonment in default, concurrent to Counts 4 and 6.
Count 8:	4 months' imprisonment concurrent to Counts 4 and 6.
Count 9:	£1,000 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default concurrent to Counts 4, 6 and 8.
Count 10:	£1,000 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default, concurrent to Counts 4, 6, 8 and 9.
Breach of Probation:	Admitted - 18 months' imprisonment consecutive.

Total: 4 years' imprisonment and £2,800 fine or 6 weeks' imprisonment in default.

Confiscation Order £1.

Daniel Robert Hennessey

Second Indictment

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) Law, 1999. (Count 1).

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1

Hennessey and Shaw arrived in Jersey on 6^th May, 2006 on the Ferry as foot passengers.  Goodman arrived on the same Ferry with his vehicle.  Goodman and Shaw thereafter met up whilst Hennessey met with Fitzgerald.  Concealed within the petrol tank of Goodman's vehicle was 12 kilos of cannabis resin.  Goodman and Shaw took the car to the car park of the Victoria Pub in St Peter's Valley where they removed 10½ kilos of cannabis resin.  The packages were wrapped and taped in beeswax.  They removed the wrappings in the car park.  They then went to their Hotel and spent the next couple of hours cleaning up 3 kilos of cannabis resin.

Hennessey made contact with Goodman/Shaw and arranged for Fitzgerald to meet them.  Fitzgerald met Goodman and Shaw in a pub and then walked to the Hotel car park.  Shaw had stopped on the way at a take-away restaurant.  Goodman handed 3 kilos of cannabis resin to Fitzgerald out of the boot of his vehicle and Fitzgerald placed the cannabis resin in a carrier bag.  The remaining 7½ kilos of cannabis resin was in a holdall in Goodman's boot.  Police then arrested Goodman and Fitzgerald and a short while later arrested Shaw and then Hennessey.  A search of the petrol tank of Goodman's vehicle discovered a further 1½ kilos of cannabis.

The 12 kilos of cannabis resin had a wholesale value of between £36,000 and £48,000.  The street value was £69,120.

When interviewed under caution, Hennessey denied any knowledge of the cannabis resin and said it must have been down to Goodman and Shaw on their own behalf.  He subsequently put forward a factual basis which was that he was aware that there was cannabis to be imported although he thought it was only 10 kilos and that his role was to introduce Goodman and Shaw to Fitzgerald.  He was to be paid a sum of money for this involvement.

Goodman and Shaw admitted being couriers.  Goodman had inserted the cannabis resin in the petrol tank and Shaw's role was to assist in its removal and cleaning.  Goodman had presumed that Fitzgerald was to take the entire consignment once the beeswax etc. had been cleaned off.

Details of Mitigation:

In the Crown's view, Hennessey had been concerned in the importation of 12 kilos cannabis which had been a sophisticated importation.  Hennessey had put forward a version of events to the effect that he was the link between the couriers and Fitzgerald.  The Crown took the view that this was an important role as he was the link between the couriers and the local distributor.  He, therefore, must have been close to the source of distribution or supplier of the cannabis in England and aware of the role played by Fitzgerald in Jersey. The Crown's view was that Hennessey's level of involvement as being one step below that of Atkinson who was described as an organiser/facilitator.  The Crown took as its "starting point" a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment.  In terms of mitigation he did not have the benefit of good character but he did have the benefit of his guilty plea and the background circumstances contained within the Social Enquiry Report.

The Defence submitted that a 7 year "starting point" was too high and did not properly reflect his level of involvement.  His "starting point" should be no more than that of the couriers.  His role was very limited.  He should be entitled to full credit for his guilty plea.  He has his family's support.  They suggested that a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was appropriate.

Previous Convictions:

4 convictions for 6 offences including robbery, burglary, possession with intent to supply Class B drugs (x 2), fraud.

Conclusions:

Starting point 7 years.

Count 1:

4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction order sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 6 years.

Count 2:

3½ years' imprisonment.

The Court viewed him as an essential and important link between the couriers and Fitzgerald.  He was a step below Atkinson.  The Court imposed a 6 year "starting point".  He did not have the benefit of youth and had a bad record including 2 drug offences.   He had the benefit of a guilty plea and the information contained within the Reports.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered on Second Indictment.

Mark Shaw

Second Indictment

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) Law, 1999. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 3).

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty (Count 1), Not Guilty (Count 2 and 3 - kept on file).

Details of Offence:

Count 1: See Hennessey above.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown viewed him as a courier and took as its "starting point" one of 6 years' imprisonment.  He was not of good character nor did he have the benefit of youth.  He had pleaded guilty although given that he had been under surveillance he was effectively caught "red handed" and, therefore, was not entitled to a full one third reduction.  He had the personal mitigation available to him as contained within his Social Enquiry Report and character references.

The Defence took issue with the "starting point".  He had no involvement in the organisation etc. of the importation.  Insufficient credit had been given for his guilty plea.  He had entered a guilty plea in the Magistrate's Court.  It was disputed that he was caught "red handed" as he was not caught at the scene of the drug transfer between Goodman and Fitzgerald.  Mitigation for his background was put forward.

Previous Convictions:

9 convictions for 22 offences including dishonesty, motoring, and possession with intent to supply Class A drugs.

Conclusions:

Starting point 6 years.

Count 1:

3½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction order sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Acted as a courier.  The Court took as a "starting point" 6 years.  He did not have the benefit of youth or good character and the Court had regard to the information contained within the Reports etc.

Conclusions granted.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered on Second Indictment.

Donald Walter Goodman

Second Indictment

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) Law, 1999. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 3).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 4).

Age:  70.

Plea: Guilty (Count 1), Not Guilty (Counts 2, 3 and 4 - kept on file).

Details of Offence:

Count 1: See Hennessey above.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown took a similar stance to the sentencing on Goodman as it had done for Shaw in that he was a courier and, therefore, the "starting point" was one of 6 years' imprisonment.  Good man did not have the benefit of good character nor youth and whilst he was the eldest of the Defendants which could be a mitigating factor the Crown's view was that given his background and his age, he should have known better than to become involved in a drugs importation at that stage in his life.  He had been caught "red handed".  He did have the benefit of a guilty plea.  He had also the information contained within the Social Enquiry Report.

The Defence contended strongly that greater mitigation should be provided because of his age.  He should also be entitled to a full one third credit so as to encourage other people to plead guilty.  He had been co-operative.  He was remorseful.  The 6 year "starting point" was accepted but it was suggested that greater credit should be given for the mitigation reducing the sentence to 2 years.

Previous Convictions:

16 convictions for 50 offences including dishonesty, motoring, assault and robbery and firearm offences.

Conclusions:

Starting point 6 years.

Count 1:

3½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction order sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court agreed with the Crown and saw nothing to distinguish him from Shaw.  The "starting point" was one of 6 years.  He did not have the benefit of youth or good character.  Whilst old age could be a factor, the Court in the circumstances of this case was not prepared to treat it as such.  The Court had regard to the matters contained within the Reports.

Conclusions granted.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered on Second Indictment.

Khazara Khan

Third Indictment

2 counts 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) Law, 1999. (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  .23.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1 and 2: See Smith above

Khan, whilst in Police custody made a number of attempts to destroy forensic evidence in that she put her hands into her knickers and on other occasions into her vagina and tried to flush her knickers down the toilet.  These efforts were foiled and forensic analysis revealed a direct link with the concealment of the importation of the heroin within her underwear.  Neither Smith nor Khan made any admissions during interview.

Details of Mitigation:

On her factual basis she was involved by Smith who had requested her assistance in concealing and importing the drugs.  It was her contention that she had been led to believe by Smith that she was importing cannabis rather than heroin.  She had been reliant upon Smith who was to pay her travel and hotel related expenses.  She contended that he had threatened her to co-operate.  The Crown's "starting point" was one of 9 years' imprisonment.  She had the benefit of a guilty plea although she was caught effectively "red handed" in the view of the Crown.  She did not have the benefit of good character and she was not a first offender.  She appeared knowledgeable to the possibility of forensic evidence but her attempts to destroy forensic evidence had been unsuccessful.  She had the benefit of age and also the personal mitigation available to her as revealed by the various reports.

The Defence emphasised her guilty pleas and the fact she was to be sentenced on the basis of her knowledge i.e. cannabis rather than heroin to be imported.  On the basis that she was imply a mule the "starting point" should be one of 7 years' imprisonment.  The Defence did not agree that she was caught "red handed" as the package was on the floor underneath her seat.  Emphasis was placed upon her family background and circumstances.  She was described as a vulnerable person who had been entertained by those who were involved in the drugs importation and given a cocktail of drugs.  It was then suggested that she should travel with Smith who initially appeared friendly towards her but then became threatening.  The Defence asked for a lesser sentence than the Crown was seeking.

Previous Convictions:

9 convictions for 19 offences including possession of Class A drugs (x 2), possession of Class B drugs, shoplifting and theft.

Conclusions:

Starting point 9 years.

Count 1:	4½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction order sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

She had hidden the drugs on her person.  Smith had been initially friendly but then threatening.  It was agreed that 9 years was the correct "starting point".  She had a guilty plea but was not co-operative.  She had the benefit of her age and had a bad record.  The court quoted from Rimmer -v- AG in relation to Khan's belief that it was cannabis and not heroin she was importing.  This was not a mitigating factor.  She had a troubled background.  Had made progress whilst in Prison.

Starting point 9 years.

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered on Third Indictment.

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

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for Atkinson.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Fitzgerald.

Advocate J. P. Michel for Smith.

Advocate P. D. James for Clare.

Advocate W. Grace for Goldstone.

Advocate M. L. Preston for Hennessy.

Advocate P. S. Landick for Goodman.

Advocate L. K. A. Richardson for Shaw.

Advocate J. S. Dickinson for Khan.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        This sentencing hearing relates to offences which took place in Jersey between February and November 2006.  The total value of the drugs imported at street level prices was £209,520, of which, £154,520 relates to cannabis and £55,000 to heroin.  There are three Indictments with certain individuals appearing in more than one Indictment.  We summarise the facts first.

First Indictment

2.        Taking the First Indictment, as this covers a number of separate incidents, we deal with the facts by reference to each of the Counts.

(i)        Count 1 - conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition of the importation of drugs.  This Count involved James Fitzgerald.  On 10^th March, 2006, an unknown quantity of cannabis resin was imported into the Island concealed within a spare tyre of a vehicle.  Mr Fitzgerald admitted in interview that he had received 5 kilos from a consignment which had been imported on that date, not in one go, but on a number of drops over a period of time, and he had been asked to sell it.  He admitted receiving a total of £16,000 from which he retained £1,000 and he passed on the balance on the basis of instructions received by him.  This consignment, which Mr Fitzgerald admitted receiving and distributing, would have had a wholesale value of between £15,000 and £20,000, and a maximum street value of £28,800.

(ii)       Count 2 - assisting another to obtain the benefit of drug trafficking.  This Count involved Philip Clare.  Mr Clare assisted Mr Fitzgerald by transferring two sums totalling £5,400, given to him by Mr Fitzgerald from the proceeds of drug trafficking, into the account in the UK of an Edmond Atkinson, the husband of the co-accused Karen Atkinson.  The Crown accepts that it was on the making of the second payment that Mr Clare first suspected that these monies were the proceeds of drug trafficking and he stands to be sentenced on that basis.

(iii)      Count 3 - charges in relation to motor vehicles involving Mr Clare.  Following the arrest of Mr Clare and on his being granted bail on 30^th August, 2006, the Police attended at the pier head at the Albert Quay after a report of suspicious behaviour and found Mr Clare on the driver's seat of a white Ford Fiesta with the keys in the ignition.  The engine was cold.  The Police formed the opinion that Mr Clare was under the influence of alcohol.  Mr Clare provided a breath test the lowest reading of which was 108 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.  He claimed in interview that he had no intention to drive.

(iv)      Count 4 - conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of drugs.  This Count involved Mrs Atkinson, Mr Fitzgerald, Cedric Smith and Philip Goldstone.  On 23^rd March Mrs Atkinson and a Bernard Gyimah, who has yet to stand trial in relation to this matter, arrived in Jersey and booked into the Pomme D'Or using the same credit card for their expenses.  The Police had placed audio equipment in Mrs Atkinson's room and monitored and recorded all of the conversations.  She met Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Goldstone (the latter staying at the Pomme D'Or for one night using the same credit card) both in her room and at various pubs in St Helier.  Various money transfers were made during this period.  The transcript of the conversations in her room left no doubt that they related to drug trafficking.  It is the Crown's position, as set out in detail in its case summary, that she was an organiser or facilitator for the conspiracy, her function being to have meetings with the local principals and collect money from them.  Mr Fitzgerald's position in the conspiracy was to act as the Jersey link.  His role was to meet up with Mrs Atkinson and go and collect the drugs once imported.  He was also instructed when and where to send money.  He was to distribute the cannabis once it had arrived.  The Crown accepts that he did know how much cannabis he was to be entrusted with and that he should be sentenced on the basis that it would not have been more than 5 kilos, the amount he admitted receiving on the earlier occasion.  Mr Goldstone's part in the conspiracy was limited to introducing Mrs Atkinson to Mr Fitzgerald for which he received £500.  The Crown accepts that he did not know or have any contact with the co-accused Cedric Smith who carried out the importation.  That importation was carried out on 31^st March, 2006, when Mr Smith arrived in Jersey on the Condor Vitesse driving a blue Ford Focus Zetec.  He was stopped and a search revealed that he had 10 kilos of cannabis secreted in the spare wheel of his car.  The Jersey wholesale value of that amount of cannabis was between £30,000 and £40,000 with a street value of £57,600.  Mr Smith had on him the Western Union collection receipt for the sum of £500 transferred to him by Mr Gyimah on 24^th March, 2006.  When interviewed he denied any knowledge of the drugs and could offer no explanation as to how they got there.  As to the receipt he said that Mr Gyimah owed him money but could not explain why it should have come to him from Jersey.  Mr Fitzgerald, Mr Smith and Mr Goldstone pleaded guilty to this Count but Mrs Atkinson pleaded not guilty and was subsequently convicted by unanimous verdict of the Jury at an Assize held on 19^th March, 2007.

(v)       Counts 5-8: - driving without due care; uninsured; without a license and failing to provide a specimen.  These Counts all involve Mr Goldstone.  On 17^th March, 2006, after Mr Goldstone had been sentenced by the Royal Court to 12 months probation and  240 hours community service for importing 5.6 grams of cocaine, which we will come to later, he was observed drinking heavily at the Dog and Sausage public house in the company of Mr Fitzgerald.  He was then seen to leave with another man and drive his VW camper van erratically, including going through a red light.  He then crashed the vehicle into the wall of St Saviour's Parish Hall and hit another vehicle causing minor injuries to the driver.  The accident caused £1,500 worth of damage to the wall and the other car, valued at £2,950, was written off.  The Crown has not been requested to pursue any claim for compensation.  Mr Goldstone refused to provide a sample of breath for analysis.  The next day he admitted the offences but claimed he couldn't remember anything about the incident.  He was presented to the Magistrates Court in relation to these offences on 20^th March, when he was given bail on condition inter alia that he did not leave the Island.

(vi)      Counts 9 and 10 - attempting to stow away and unauthorised presence in a restricted area.  These Counts involve Mr Goldstone.  On 15^th May Customs and Immigration Officers discovered Mr Goldstone and his girlfriend hiding behind the rear seats of his Land Rover, which was being driven by two other men, prior to embarkation on to the ferry.  Mr Goldstone did not have a ticket and when he was found the car was in the restricted area of the Port.  He has subsequently informed the Probation Officer that he needed to go to St Malo to pick up a car he had left there, which was going to be driven back by one of the two other men.  His bail was subsequently rescinded and he was remanded in custody.

The Second Indictment. 

3.        This involved Mr Fitzgerald, Daniel Hennessey, Mark Shaw and Donald Goodman and concerns one incident.  On 6^th May, 2006, Mr Hennessey, Mr Shaw and Mr Goodman arrived in Jersey on the Condor ferry.  Mr Shaw and Mr Hennessey were foot passengers and Mr Goodman came in his blue BMW.  12 kilos of cannabis was secreted in the fuel tank.  This quantity of cannabis would have had a wholesale value of £36,000 to £48,000 and a street value of £69,120.  Whilst Mr Hennessey met up with Mr Fitzgerald, Mr Goodman and Mr Shaw went to the Victoria Inn car park where they removed 10.5 kilos of cannabis from the petrol tank.  Packages containing the cannabis were wrapped in tape and beeswax.  They then went to the Mountview Hotel where in their room they cleaned up 3 kilos of cannabis.  Having completed this operation they met Mr Fitzgerald at the Don Inn from where they walked together to the Mountview Hotel.  Mr Fitzgerald had agreed to pay £3,000 per kilo for the cannabis.  The Police then observed Mr Goodman and Mr Fitzgerald lean into the boot of Mr Goodman's car and Mr Goodman place 3 kilos of cannabis into a carrier bag held by Mr Fitzgerald.  The Police moved in and found the remaining 7.5 kilos in a holdall in the boot of the car.  The subsequent search of the car revealed a further 1.5 kilos of cannabis still in the petrol tank.  Mr Fitzgerald has admitted meeting Mr Goodman and Mr Shaw at the Don Inn and agreeing to pay £3,000 per kilo for the cannabis he collected from the car, but not any involvement in the importation and the Crown accepts he is to be sentenced on that basis.  The Crown accepts that Mr Hennessey is to be sentenced on the basis that his role in the importation was to introduce Mr Goodman and Mr Shaw to Mr Fitzgerald.  He knew that the importation involved what he thought was 10 kilos of cannabis.  He was to be paid for his part but was not an organiser.  Mr Shaw admitted his part in the importation, namely that he was employed to remove the cannabis from the petrol tank and clean it.  Mr Goodman has similarly admitted his part in the importation.  He had collected the cannabis in the beeswax and placed it in the petrol tank of his car.  He had given Mr Shaw the money for the ferry ticket in Epping and Mr Shaw had booked the ferry.

The Third Indictment

4.        This involved Mr Smith and Khazara Khan and again concerns one incident.  On 15^th November, 2006, Mr Smith and Miss Khan travelled to Jersey on the Condor Clipper and checked into the Sandranne Hotel.  From there they went to the Bella Italia restaurant.  They were under Police surveillance and because the Police were concerned that drugs had been transferred at the restaurant they moved in separating the two defendants.  The Police found a sausage shaped package wrapped in two sanitary towels beneath the seat where they had been sitting.  On analysis the package was found to contain 55.47 grams of heroin and 3.80 grams of cannabis resin.  The heroin had a wholesale value of between £8,000 and £11,000 and could provide 11,000 street deals worth £55,000.  The cannabis had a street value of £15 to £20 and was considered a personal quantity.  In Interview Mr Smith admitted paying for the tickets but replied "no comment" to all pertinent questions on the importation of the drugs.  Miss Khan confirmed she was a heroin user, but denied being involved in importation and provided "no comment" responses to questions put to her.  On two occasions she was seen to put her fingers into her vagina and she tried to destroy her knickers, inferring, in the view of the Crown, that she was aware of the possibility of forensic evidence linking her to the importation.  In the Crown's view her actions were therefore aimed at destroying such evidence.  Both defendants subsequently pleaded guilty.

Policy of the Courts

5.        Before turning to the sentences to be imposed on each defendant it is worth reiterating the policy of the Courts and the role they have in suppressing the evil of drug trafficking which has the capacity to wreck havoc with the lives of individual abusers and their families.  The learned Bailiff when delivering a Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Campbell -v- AG [1995] JLR 136 stated as follows on page 144:

"We desire to make it absolutely clear what is the policy of the Courts in this jurisdiction in relation to the sentencing of offenders who import or deal in drugs on a commercial basis.  That policy is that offenders will receive condign punishment to mark the peculiarly heinous and antisocial nature of the crime of drug trafficking."

As will be seen we have had proper regard to that policy in the sentences we are about to impose.

Sentences

Mrs Atkinson

6.        We now take the defendants in turn and start with Mrs Atkinson.  We accept the view based on the Crown's detailed submissions that Mrs Atkinson was an organiser and a facilitator, overseeing the importation of just under 10 kilos of cannabis which occurred on 31^st March, 2006.  The transcript showed her discussing inter alia large sums of money and sending sums to the UK.  There were numerous conversations as to how large sums of money were to be shared out and what her other entitlements would be.  10 kilos is at the top end of the first band in the Campbell guidelines or at the bottom end of the second band.  The Crown correctly view her involvement in drug trafficking as high, and thus have placed her in the second band, and have taken a starting point of 8 years.  Mr Hopwood argued that as the precise weight of the cannabis was 9.61 kilos she came within the lowest band, band C, of the Campbell guidelines, and thus 6 years was the maximum starting point suggested under those guidelines unless there were exceptional circumstances.  We reject that very precise approach to what are guidelines.  When dealing with quantities which are close to the top of one band and the bottom of another the Court must have the flexibility to range between those bands in a manner which it feels properly reflects the involvement in drug trafficking of the particular defendant.  In our view taking into account the involvement of Mrs Atkinson the appropriate starting point is, however, 7 years.  She does not have the benefit of a guilty plea or of youth.  She does, however, have the benefit of a clean record and is therefore of good character.  We have considered the Social Enquiry Report, the references that have been provided and the submissions of her Counsel.  Mrs Atkinson you are sentenced on Count 4 of the First Indictment to 6 years' imprisonment.

Mr Fitzgerald

7.        I now turn to Mr Fitzgerald.  This defendant stands to be sentenced in relation to Counts 1 and 4 of the First Indictment and Count 6 of the Second Indictment.  On the factual basis put forward, and which is accepted by the Crown, Mr Fitzgerald was to take possession of, and distribute, 13 kilos of cannabis arising out of three distinct importations.  He was also involved in the collection and forwarding by bank transfer, or money gram, the proceeds to principals in the UK.  We agree that we should follow the approach of the Royal Court in AG -v- Gaish [2006] JRC 109 and fix concurrent sentences, and that, taking into account the total amount of the drugs and the nature and scale of his repeated involvement, and applying the Campbell guidelines, the appropriate starting point is 8 years.  We accept that in view of the historical nature of his record he should be treated as a man of good character.  In terms of his guilty pleas he was caught receiving the cannabis from Mr Goodman, and the plea to Count 6 of the Second Indictment was therefore inevitable, but he is entitled to credit for the guilty pleas in relation to the First Indictment and in particular in relation to Count 1.  He was co-operative in interview, although initial full and frank admissions were subsequently diluted, or diminished, through instructions provided to Counsel.  We have considered the Social Enquiry Report, the Alcohol and Drug Service Report, the character references and the submissions of his Counsel.  Mr Fitzgerald taking the First Indictment on Count 1 you are sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, on Count 4 you are sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, concurrent, on the Second Indictment on Count 6 you are sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, concurrent, which gives a total of 5 years' imprisonment.

Mr Clare

8.        Mr Clare played a limited and specific, but important role in assisting Mr Fitzgerald transfer the proceeds of drug trafficking out of the jurisdiction.  We agree that such assistance constitutes a serious offence, as it is through such assistance that those involved in the business of drug trafficking seek to receive the financial profits derived from their illegal activities.  There are no guidelines for offences of this sort which are not susceptible to a starting point.  Mr Clare went on to commit a further offence, whilst on bail, albeit of an entirely different nature and we agree with the Crown that his sentence for this further offence should be consecutive.  Mr Clare is of good character but he does not have the benefit of youth, he is 47.  He was co-operative at interview and pleaded guilty.  We have considered the Social Enquiry Report and the references and the submissions of his Counsel.  We are conscious that he has been on bail since May 2006 and that there has been a substantial delay during which time no offences have been committed. He is of course to be sentenced on the basis of the second payment only and he received no reward for his involvement.  Mr Clare the Court agonised over how it should deal with you but on balance it has decided to spare you prison.  You will be sentenced as follows: on the First Indictment, Count 1, you will serve 180 hours of Community Service, which is equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment; on Count 3 you will serve 50 hours of Community Service, consecutive, and that's equivalent to 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.  You will therefore serve Community Service of a total of 230 hours, or 13 months' imprisonment by way of equivalent sentence.  We must warn you Mr Clare that we have given you an opportunity and if you, in any way, fail to complete the Community Service, or are in breach of its terms, you will be brought back to this Court where you will almost certainly be sentenced to the sentence of imprisonment which we would otherwise have imposed upon you.

Mr Goldstone

9.        I now turn to Mr Goldstone.  Mr Goldstone has admitted being a party to the conspiracy to illegally import just under 10 kilos of cannabis which importation occurred on 31^st March, 2006.  His role was to provide the link, or introduction, between the English principal, Mrs Atkinson, and the Jersey principal, Mr Fitzgerald, for which he received £500.  We agree with the Crown that the importance of this role should not be overlooked.  It was an essential link in the chain that enabled the importation to go ahead.  It also shows, in our view, that he was close both to the source of supply from the UK and the means of distribution in Jersey, although his involvement was a step below that of Mrs Atkinson.  We note that the Crown have sought a starting point, for his level of involvement, of 7 years, which is one year less than that sought for Mrs Atkinson.  In our view the appropriate starting point, taking into account Mr Goldstone's involvement, is 6 years. 

10.      Mr Goldstone also stands to be sentenced for the driving and other offences comprised within Counts 5 to 10 of the First Indictment.  Dealing first with the motoring offences, we note that in relation to Count 6 this was his fifth offence of such nature and, as the Crown correctly point out, it is an aggravating factor that the motoring offences were committed on the very day the Royal Court released him on probation for the cocaine charge of 17^th March, 2006. 

11.      Moving to the quite separate stow away charges, Counts 9 and 10, these were committed in clear breach of his bail conditions.  We are prepared to accept the Crown's submission that they should be treated concurrently to the motoring offences, having regard to the totality principle. 

12.      By way of mitigation Mr Goldstone does not have the benefit of youth, he is 45, and he has a bad record including four drugs offences.  On the other hand, he has the benefit of guilty pleas.  The Court has considered the Social Enquiry Report, the Alcohol and Drug Service Report, the references, the other documents before the Court and the submissions of his Counsel. 

13.      Before turning to sentence, we want to deal with the Attorney General's representation and the fact that the offences to which Mr Goldstone has now pleaded guilty were committed in breach of the Probation and Community Service Orders imposed upon him by the Royal Court on 17^th March, 2006, in relation to the importation of 5.6 grams of cocaine for personal use.  The facts of that case are set out in a Judgment of the Royal Court and we will not repeat them here, suffice it to say that in passing sentence the Court indicated that the sentence of imprisonment it had considered passing was 18 months.  In giving Mr Goldstone the opportunity that a Community Service Order represents, the Court expressly warned him that in the event of any breach there would only be one outcome.  On that very day he went out and committed the motoring offences and he then involved himself in the conspiracy to illegally import just under 10 kilos of cannabis before attempting to stow away on the car ferry.  Counsel has referred us to the case of Graham -v- AG [1996] JLR 270 and we have considered whether we should, in our discretion, give credit to Mr Goldstone for the period he spent on remand prior to being sentenced for that matter, but we have no hesitation in agreeing with the conclusions of the Crown in this respect, namely, that he should serve the full 18 months. 

14.      Mr Goldstone your sentence as follows: on the First Indictment, on Count 4, you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment; on Count 5 you will be fined £300 or 1 month's imprisonment in default, concurrent to Count 4; on Count 6 you will be sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 4; on Count 7 you will be fined £500 or 6 weeks' imprisonment in default, concurrent to Counts 4 and 6; on Count 8 you will be sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Counts 4 and 6; on Count 9 you will be fined £1,000 or three months' imprisonment in default, concurrent to Counts 4, 6 and 8; on Count 10 you will be fined £1,000 or three months' imprisonment in default, concurrent to Counts 4, 6, 8 and 9.  In terms of the Attorney General's representation and the Count of cocaine possession you will be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, consecutive, and we revoke the Probation and Community Service Orders.  You will therefore serve a total of 4 years' imprisonment, together with fines of £2,800 with appropriate sentences in default.

Mr Hennessy

15.      Mr Hennessey provided the link between the couriers, Mr Goodman and Mr Shaw, and the local distributor, Mr Fitzgerald.  As with Mr Goldman we regard this as a vital and essential link in the chain that enabled the importation to go ahead.  It shows that he was close both to the source of the supply from the UK and the means of distribution in Jersey.  We agree with the Crown, however, that his level of involvement is a step below that of someone like Mrs Atkinson who was an organiser and facilitator.  The Crown has submitted a starting point of 7 years but in our view 6 years more properly reflects his involvement.  By way of mitigation he does not have the benefit of youth, he is 32, and he has a bad record, including two drug related offences for possession with intent to supply cannabis.  He does, however, have the benefit of a guilty plea.  We have read the Social Enquiry Report, the references and have considered the submissions of his Counsel.  Mr Hennessey on the Second Indictment, Count 1, you are sentenced to 3½ years' imprisonment.

Mr Shaw and Mr Goodman

16.      I now turn to Mr Shaw and Mr Goodman who we take jointly.  The Crown has taken these defendants together as they both fulfilled the role of courier and there is little to distinguish them.  We agree that applying the Campbell guidelines and taking into account their level of involvement, 6 years is the appropriate starting point for both.  By way of mitigation neither have the benefit of youth, Mr Shaw is 32 and Mr Goodman is 70, and neither is of good character.  We have accepted that old age can be a factor to be taken into account but we are not prepared in the case of Mr Goodman to do so in order to reduce what we would otherwise have sentenced him to.  We have read both Social Enquiry Reports and considered the submissions of both of their Counsel and, of course, the references which were handed up to us.  Mr Shaw and Mr Goodman you are each sentenced on Count 1 of the Second Indictment to 3½ years' imprisonment.

Mr Smith

17.      Mr Smith was involved with two separate importations of illegal drugs worth £112,000 in which he fulfilled the role of courier.  The method involved in the importation on 31^st March was sophisticated and we agree it would not be inappropriate to describe him as a profession courier.  Taking the importation of cannabis first, and applying the Campbell guidelines, it is our view that 6 years is the appropriate starting point to reflect his involvement.  In relation to the heroin importation, the relevant guidelines are to be found in Rimmer -v- AG [2001] JLR 148, which gives a sentencing band of between 9 and 11 years for quantities of heroin between 50 and100 grams.  With regard to those guidelines it is our view that 9 years is the appropriate starting point in relation to this offence.  Mr Smith does not have the benefit of youth, he is 56, and he has a bad record.  Any credit for his guilty plea is diluted by the fact that he was caught on both occasions and really had little alternative but to plead guilty.  He was not co-operative with the Police.  We have read the Social Enquiry Report and the references and, of course, we have listened to the submissions of his Counsel.  We do not regard the reported threats of violence as affording any mitigation, and note the irony of the assertions of Miss Khan that she herself was threatened by Mr Smith.  As the Crown says such violence is an inevitable part of the antisocial and dangerous world of drug trafficking.  We agree with the Crown that we should take each of the cannabis and heroin importation offences separately and then assess the total.  On Count 4, therefore, under the First Indictment, that is the importation of the cannabis, we would impose a sentence of 4 years.  In relation to the importation of heroin, that is Count 1 of the Third Indictment, we would impose a sentence of 6½ years.  This gives rise to a total under those two Counts of 10½ years and applying the totality principle we are going to reduce that to 8½ years.  Mr Smith you are therefore sentenced as follows: under the First Indictment, Count 4 you are sentenced to 3½ years' imprisonment; under the Third Indictment, Count 1, you are sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, consecutive; on Count 2 you are sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent; which gives a total of 8½ years' imprisonment.

Miss Khan

18.      Finally, we turn to Miss Khan who assisted Mr Smith by concealing the drugs on her person.  She maintains that she was led to believe by Mr Smith that the drugs were cannabis.  She asserted that whilst initially friendly Mr Smith became more threatening to ensure her compliance.  Applying the Rimmer guidelines we agree with the Crown that 9 years is the appropriate starting point.  A guilty plea, as with Mr Smith, was inevitable.  She was not co-operative with the Police and apparently attempted to destroy forensic evidence.  She does, however, have the benefit of her age, she is 23, although against that she has a bad record.  In terms of her belief that she was importing cannabis, we can do no better than quote from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Rimmer when Mr Southwell said:

"In our judgment, a courier who knowingly transports illegal drugs must be taken to accept the consequences of his actions.  As the Attorney General put it, the moral blameworthiness is the same, whatever the nature of the drugs transported.  Furthermore, viewed from the perspective of the community, the evil consequences flowing from the dissemination of Class A drugs are not mitigated in the slightest by the erroneous belief of the courier that he was transporting a Class B drug.  There may be very exceptional circumstances in which a genuine belief that a different drug was being carried might be relevant to sentence.  But in general we endorse the Royal Court's view in the case of Campbell that an erroneous belief as to the type of drug being carried is not a mitigating factor."

We have read the Social Enquiry Report, the Psychological Report of Doctor Wade, Miss Khan's letter, the report from the Alcohol and Drug Service and the submissions of her Counsel.  We are conscious that she has had a very troubled and abusive background and we note the very positive progress she has made in custody.  Notwithstanding the very serious nature of the offences we do feel able to reduce, by a small amount, the conclusions by way of encouragement to her.  We also hope that she will take advantage of the opportunities that are clearly available to her while she is in custody.  Miss Khan on the Third Indictment, on the First Count, you will be sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment; on the Second Count  you will be sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent; which gives rise to a total sentence of imprisonment of 4 years.

19.      We order the destruction and forfeiture of the drugs contained in the Second and Third Indictments.

20.      We would also like to mention all of the Police Officers, and indeed Customs Officers, involved in this investigation, who are to be commended for their dedication and hard work in providing the evidence which enabled these Defendants to be brought before the Court.  And finally whilst we are grateful to all Counsel for their submissions, which indeed we are, we feel it appropriate to express our thanks to Crown Advocate Gollop for his very clear presentation of the facts before the Court and for his comprehensive sentencing bundle.

Authorities

Campbell -v- AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG -v- Gaish [2006] JRC 109.

AG -v- Goldstone [2006] JRC 043.

Graham -v- AG [1996] JLR 270.

Rimmer -v- AG [2001] JLR 148.