Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC113

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

14^th July 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

Bernard Gyimah

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 13^th June, 2008, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  44.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On the 23^rd March, 2006, Gyimah and Atkinson (a co-accused) arrived in Jersey.  These two were concerned with three other individuals in a conspiracy to import 10 kilos of cannabis resin which occurred on the 31^st March, 2006.  The cannabis had a wholesale value in Jersey of between £30,000 and £40,000 and a street value of £57,000.  (See AG v Atkinson and Others [2007] JRC 090 for full facts and involvement of other conspirators).  Conversations between the conspirators were monitored.  The Crown categorised Gyimah's involvement as being that of an organiser and facilitator at the same level of Atkinson.  The recorded conversations between the conspirators revealed discussions concerning large sums of money and how those sums of money were to be shared out.  There were also discussions about delays or the boat being cancelled, about it was not safe to use the telephone etcetera.  Gyimah, together with Atkinson, made a number of money transfers from Jersey to the UK and in particular Gyimah sent a co-conspirator, Smith, the sum of £500 being the fee for Smith to act as the courier.

The Crown took as it's 'starting point' 7 years' imprisonment in keeping with the 'starting point' fixed by the Royal Court in the sentencing hearing of the co-conspirators.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown referred to Gyimah's good character.  He was a first offender.  He did not have the benefit of youth.  He initially pleaded not guilty and that not guilty plea had been maintained following an absence from the Island when he was in custody in the UK.  He did subsequently enter a guilty plea.

The Defence sought to categorise his involvement as akin to that of Smith the courier thus justifying a 'starting point' of 6 years' imprisonment.  His previous good character was emphasised, his work record, his guilty plea and remorse.  If was further suggested that as a matter of the Court's discretion, allowance should be made for the 14 months he had spent on remand in the UK whilst awaiting trial there for separate matters of which he was acquitted.  The case of Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 11, was cited in support.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order in the nominal sum of £1 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 6 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order in the nominal sum of £1 ordered.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

The defendant had pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in the importation of 10 kilos of cannabis which had a street value of £57,000.  The Court had given anxious consideration to the issue of the 'starting point' which was based upon the extent to which the defendant was involved in this criminal activity.  The Crown Advocate sought a 'starting point' of 7 years' imprisonment.  This placed the defendant at the same level as the co-defendant, Atkinson, who had been sentenced last year.  The Court had the advantage of having many of the Jurats who sat on the earlier sentencing hearing sitting again today.  The Court had regard to the unreported Judgment and the reference to the acceptance of Atkinson as being the organiser/facilitator of this importation.  The Court, when sentencing the co-defendants, had placed Smith as a courier with a 'starting point' of 6 years' imprisonment.  The Court had concluded, after much discussion, that this defendant was involved at a level similar to that of a courier.  The appropriate 'starting point' was, therefore, one of 6 years' imprisonment.  The Court had then deducted the customary deduction for a guilty plea and had taken account of his good character and the references.  The Court had some sympathy for the fact that he had spent a period in custody in the United Kingdom but the Court did not think that this was a matter which it was entitled to take into account in this jurisdiction. 

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

Advocate O. A. Blakely for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in the importation of 10kg of cannabis, with a street value of approximately £57,000. 

2.        The Court has been giving anxious consideration to the question of the appropriate starting point, which of course bears upon the extent to which the defendant was involved in this criminal activity.  The Crown Advocate has taken a starting point of 7 years placing the defendant at the same level as his co-defendant Atkinson, who was sentenced last year.  The Court has the advantage of being constituted with many of the Jurats who sat on the sentencing of Atkinson and other co-defendants on the 30^th April, 2007.  We have had regard to the note in the unreported judgment which records (of Atkinson) that the Crown had taken the view that she was the organiser and facilitator of the importation of the 10kg of cannabis.  The Court, when sentencing the co-defendants placed Smith, who was the courier, on a starting point of 6 years.  We have reached the conclusion, after much discussion, that this defendant, who was certainly concerned in the arrangements to import the cannabis, should be placed on the same level as the courier, and that the appropriate starting point is therefore one of 6 years.

3.        From that starting point the Court has deducted the conventional discount of one third for the guilty plea, and taken account also of the previous good character of the defendant, and the remorse which he has expressed.  We have also taken account of the references placed before us by Counsel, including the reference from the defendant's wife.

4.        All these matters have been taken into consideration; we have some sympathy for the fact that you were remanded in custody in the United Kingdom for a long period of time, but we do not think that this is a matter which we can take into account in this jurisdiction.  Having applied all the mitigation which you have to the starting point, which we find appropriate, the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 3½ years for the offence which you have admitted.

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

Authorities

Campbell v AG [1995] JCA 136.

AG v Atkinson and Others [2007] JRC 090.

Criminal Proceedings (Computation of Sentences)(Jersey) Rules 1968.

AG v Harrison [2003] JLR 480.

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 11,