Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC200

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

22^nd October 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

Michal Dominik Debiec

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following:

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant was stopped by Customs Officers entering Jersey at the Harbour in the company of another male who was the driver of a Polish registered vehicle.  The vehicle as searched and found beneath the rear seat were two bags containing a total of 10,202 tablets or tablet material.  The tablets were analysed and found to be MDMA having an average content of between 46 and 62 milligrams of MDMA per tablet.  The street value of this quantity of tablets was between £81,616 and £102,020 (Count 1).  The defendant also handed in a package containing 2.52 grams of cannabis.  This had a street value of between £14 and £18 (Count 2).

In interview under caution the defendant admitted having travelled from Spain, through Europe to Amsterdam where he purchased the tablets in small quantities and then placed them into the two larger bags as found.  He had paid €3,600 for the tablets.  He had purchased the cannabis for €25.  He confirmed it was his intention to import the ecstasy tablets into Jersey and then to sell them in small quantities in Clubs.  He absolved the other man from any involvement in the importation etcetera.  The cannabis was for personal use.

The Crown categorised the defendant as a principal in terms of his level of involvement.  The Crown took a "starting point" of 16 years imprisonment.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown viewed the guilty plea and the defendant's level of co-operation as being the most important piece of mitigation available to him.  The defendant had admitted his full involvement in not only purchasing and importing the tablets but also his intention to sell them.  The guilty plea was of real value.  It was to his credit that he had absolved his companion.  He did not have residual credit for youth and whilst he had a previous conviction it was not a drug related offence nor as serious as these offences.  He expressed remorse for his actions.  The Crown suggested a 6 year deduction for the mitigation.

The Defence confirmed that the defendant was to be sentenced on the basis that he was a principal and had sole responsibility for the purchasing and importation and the intention to sell them in Jersey.  The Defence, therefore, did not challenge the 16 year "starting point".  The Defence contended that insufficient credit had been given for all the available mitigation.  A full one third deduction should be made for the guilty plea and level of co-operation and the Crown had given insufficient credit for the other available mitigation.  It was acknowledged that the defendant had become involved in this enterprise out of greed.  The intention was to raise money to assist in putting his younger brother through college.  He was to be treated as a man of prior good character.  There had been genuine expressions of remorse.  This was powerful mitigation.   The defendant was unaware of the sentencing policies of the Royal Court.  There had to be a consistent approach in terms of sentence imposed for like offences.  The Defence asked for a re-direction to a sentence of 7 years.

Previous Convictions:

1 offence of DIC.

Conclusions:

Starting point 16 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant had been stopped by Customs Officers having arrived from St Malo in a Polish registered car.  He had travelled on single tickets.  10,202 ecstasy tablets were found in two bags which had been purchased in Amsterdam.  Those tablets had a street value of between £81,616 and £102,020.  The defendant admitted having been an occasional user of cannabis.  This was a significant commercial importation.  This was his first drug offence.  He told the Probation Officer that he was a mule/courier.  However, before us he has confirmed what he told the Customs Officer which was that he was the principal behind this importation.  The Crown Advocate has referred to obscene profits.  We agree with that submission.  The case of Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626 suggests a 14 year "starting point" for tablets in excess of 5,500.  The Crown has had regard to the other cases referred to which the Court has taken note.  The Court agrees that the proper "starting point" is 16 years imprisonment.  The Court has carefully read the Social Enquiry Report and taken due note of his full and frank admissions and the fact that he absolved his companion and the letter of remorse.  He does not appear to have been able to appreciate the effect such drugs would have had, had they been imported.  We think he is entitled to one third reduction for a guilty plea.  He is not a courier but a principal and he has accepted that.  He has no previous drug offences and, therefore, we treat him as a first offender.  His intention was to make money.  In the circumstances, the Court is going to reduce his sentence to one of 8 years.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered.

Recommendation for deportation made.

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

Advocate A. J. Olsen for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Debiec was questioned by Customs and Immigration Officers at the Elizabeth Terminal on 23^rd July of this year.  He had arrived from St Malo with another man in a car registered in Poland.  They had single tickets and said that they were staying with friends for a week before returning to Spain. 

2.        Ecstasy was discovered hidden in the vehicle in two plastic bags.  Debiec had travelled from Spain and admitted that he had purchased the ecstasy in Amsterdam.

3.        He made admissions of occasional cannabis use in Amsterdam and eventually took a wrapped package from his pocket and admitted that it was cannabis.

4.        In all he had 10,202 ecstasy tablets with a street value of between £81,660 and £102,000.  That is a substantial commercial importation.  This is Debiec's first drug offence.  He told the social worker that he was merely a courier or mule, this is not what he said initially and he now confirms that his original version is the correct one.

5.        Crown Advocate Gollop has spoken of the obscene profits to be made by buying in Amsterdam and selling in Jersey.  We entirely agree with that view.  In Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626 a starting point of 14 years is suggested for 5,500 tablets or more.  Debiec has brought in twice that amount.  Crown Advocate Gollop has reminded us of Attorney General v Vipond [2004] JRC 029, Attorney General v Dawrant and Ors [2007] JRC 162 and Attorney General v Papis [2007] JRC 160.  We have, of course, studied those cases carefully.

6.        We agree the starting point is 16 years' imprisonment.  What of the mitigation?  We have carefully read the Social Enquiry Report.  Debiec did not, when arrested, blame his co-passenger, he made full and frank admissions and absolved his travelling companion, who was subsequently released.  He has written a letter of remorse but seems unable to understand the effect the importation of these drugs could have had, but he was fully co-operative in interview.

7.        We feel that a one-third reduction for the guilty plea is appropriate.  This case is not that of a courier, Debiec was a principal and he has accepted that.  He has, at the age of 34, a record with no mention of drugs and we will treat him, for these purposes, as a first offender.

8.        His wish to make money has been explained to us by Advocate Olsen.  Clearly Debiec knew what he was up to but we are going to reduce the conclusions of the Crown to 8 years' imprisonment.

9.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment and on Count 2 to 1 month and the two sentences will be concurrent. 

10.      We order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

11.      Advocate Olsen has specifically not opposed the deportation order and the principles of R v Nazari [1980] 3 All ER 880 are fulfilled.  We recommend through the Lieutenant Governor that the defendant, who has no ties in the Island, be deported at the end of his sentence.

Authorities

Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626.

Attorney General v Vipond [2004] JRC 029. 

Attorney General v Dawrant and Ors [2007] JRC 162.

Attorney General v Papis [2007] JRC 160. 

R -v- Nazari [1980] 3 All ER 880.