Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC075

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th May 2008

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Le Breton, Allo, Morgan, Newcombe and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

Paula Jane Siddal

Alan Spencer Donohoe

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

Paula Jane Siddal

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) 1999.  (Count 1).

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Siddal imported 54.82g of cocaine, 7% pure, concealed internally, on a flight from Doncaster.  Drugs dog gave a positive indication, which led to her being stopped.  She was uncooperative with the investigation until an X-ray showed a possible internal concealment.  She was full and frank at interview, saying that she did it to pay for her children's Christmas presents, having been approached by a man in a pub.

Details of Mitigation:

Had been threatened to do this, because her partner, Alan Donohoe had failed in his importation a month earlier.  The threat was to her and one of her children.  Remorse.  Cocaine was of low purity.  Spent time in prison positively.  Difficult background.

Previous Convictions:

Poor record with convictions in 2005 for possession of Class B and C drugs.  In breach of a 12 month suspended sentence order imposed in April 2007 for possession of Class B drugs with intent to supply.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  6 years' imprisonment.

Benefit of £109.48, confiscation order in the nominal sum of £1 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Alan Spencer Donohoe

3 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) 1999.  (Counts 1, 2 and 3).

Age:  49.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Donohoe imported 48.41g of cocaine (packages varied between 13% and 17% purity), 3.73g of cannabis and 3.03g of amphetamine sulphate.  He flew from Doncaster with the drugs concealed internally.  He travelled with Michael Tyrell who was later released.  A flight attendant became suspicious of their behaviour during the flight and alerted the authorities.  Donohoe was uncooperative with the investigation in that he tried to conceal some of the packages when they were passed.  He made a short statement at interview and other than that made no reply to the substantive questions.

Details of Mitigation:

Donohoe was suffering from depression as a result of his mother's death at the time.  He was also a drug user and he committed the offence to pay off a debt.  He was to earn £750.  He was a carer for his father who was elderly and suffering from cancer.  He had been in custody for 8 months prior to sentence through no fault of his own (the prosecution had been making enquiries with a view to seeing if Siddal's and Donohoe's offences were linked and also to see whether a third party could be arrested).  Remorse.  Felt responsible for Siddal's offence.

Previous Convictions:

Lengthy, poor record including previous convictions for offering to supply Class A and B drugs, possession Class A and B drugs with intent to supply and administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life (6 years' imprisonment).

Conclusions:

Count 1:	7 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 7 years' imprisonment.

Benefit of £250, confiscation order in the sum of £207.35 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

R. C. L. Morley-Kirk, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for Siddall.

Advocate R. S. Boddie for Donohoe.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Donohoe, you imported 48 grams of cocaine and minor amounts of amphetamine sulphate and herbal cannabis all concealed internally.  Fortunately you were caught at the airport.  It is accepted that the amphetamine sulphate and the cannabis were for your personal use, but the cocaine was imported for reward and you were to be paid a total of £750. 

2.        You have an appalling record, having served a number of quite long prison sentences for burglary and robbery as well as a total of 6 years for drug offences in England in 2000.  You were only released in 2006 and now you are before us for this offence.  You have a long standing drug habit. 

3.        We must consider first of all the starting point and your advocate has conceded that the starting point of 9 years' imprisonment is correct, this being in our judgment the correct starting point having regard to your role as a courier and to the amount of the drugs in the light of the Rimmer guidelines.

4.        Your advocate has referred to the case of AG v Summers [2004] JRC 189, and has asked us to draw inferences from that.  This Court has said repeatedly that it is simply not helpful to be referred to a particular case and for then an itemised comparison of the differences, or similarities, between that case and the case before the Court to be carried out.  We, therefore, do not think it relevant to consider the question of the detailed facts of Summers, but we do note in passing that he was a man who was treated as being of good character where as you have a long record.

5.        In mitigation you have pleaded guilty, although as the drugs were concealed internally you really had no alternative and the Court therefore cannot allow the full discount.  We have read your letter of remorse and all the references.  We also note the sad consequence that you will not be there for your father when he needs you, because of his serious illness.  We have also considered all the other matters which Advocate Boddie has put forward.  But, all in all we have concluded that the Crown has allowed sufficient deduction from the starting point.

6.        The sentence is 7 years' imprisonment on Count 1, 3 months' imprisonment on Count 2, 3 months' imprisonment on Count 3, all of these concurrent so 7 years in all, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

7.        We would also like to commend the member of the aircrew who spotted the suspicious use of the toilets by the defendant in this case and alerted the authorities which led to the defendant's arrest.  Such sharp eyes by members of the public are very helpful in the fight against drug dealing.

8.        Siddall you imported just under 55 grams of cocaine also concealed internally.  You too were stopped by customs as the airport.  You have an amphetamine dependency and you too acted as a courier.  You carried out this importation only a matter of weeks after your partner Mr Donohoe had been arrested for trying to import a similar amount of cocaine. 

9.        Although you said nothing about this when interviewed, you have since said that you were the subject of threats.  However, the Court has repeatedly said that those who use drugs and therefore put themselves into the position whereby they can be threatened by dealers will not receive a lesser sentence simply because such threats have in fact materialised.

10.      You too have a poor record, although it is not nearly as bad as Donohoe's, but your record includes an offence of possession of amphetamines with intent to supply, for which you were given a suspended sentence at Sheffield Crown Court as recently as April 2007. 

11.      In your case the Crown has suggested a starting point of 9 years and we agree that this is the correct starting point.  Advocate Hopwood has raised the question of the purity of the drug which was 7% in your case.  There is no evidence before us as to whether this is particularly low in relation to cocaine, but in the absence of such evidence we will assume that the percentages and purities are similar to those of heroin. 

12.      Advocate Hopwood has referred to the case of Hasson v AG [2004] JCA 124, where in a case of similar purity a small allowance was made for the low purity.  However, the Court of Appeal there emphasised that that was because Hasson knew of the low level of purity, and it was on that basis that the reduction was made.  The case of Rimmer makes it clear that in normal circumstances no deduction should be made for low purity because the courier or the dealer if he does not know about the low purity is taking the risk upon himself as to whether the purity is high or low and therefore he should not be entitled to a discount simply because it happens to be rather low.  In the circumstances we do not think it right to make any deduction in this case.

13.      You have, however, pleaded guilty, but for the same reason as in relation to Donohoe, you cannot have the full discount because the drugs were concealed internally.  We have read the letters from your mother and indeed from you.  We note in particular the excellent progress you have been making in prison and we do commend you for that and we very much hope that it will continue and that you are being a good influence there.

14.      We have taken into account all the other matters Advocate Hopwood has raised but again the Court feels that the Crown has made allowances for all this.  The sentence in your case, is one of 6 years' imprisonment on the one count you face.

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

Authorities

Rimmer -v- Attorney General [2001] JLR 373.

AG v Summers [2004] JRC 189.

Hasson v AG [2004] JCA 124.