Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC125

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

5^th August 2008

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq, Bullen, Allo, King, Le Cornu and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jason Paul Bayliss

Stephen George King

Geraldine Mary Crimmins

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 20th June, 2008, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Jason Paul Bayliss

1 count of:

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

Age:33.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Bayliss (senior figure) with King went to London and arranged importation of heroin which they sold.  Expected profit £20,000.  Crimmins was the courier paid £2,000 fee.

Details of Mitigation:

Principal mitigation was guilty plea.  Bayliss had little other mitigation.

Previous Convictions:

Bayliss had a very similar conviction in 2004.

Conclusions:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:

6½ years imprisonment.

Confiscation order in the nominal sum of £1 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:

6½ years' imprisonment.

Confiscation order in the nominal sum of £1 made.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Discharge of Magistrate's Court Binding Over Order.

Stephen George King

1 count of:	Conspiracy to contravene Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 1).
2 counts of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Counts 3 and 4).

Age:31.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Bayliss above.

Details of Mitigation:

Principal mitigation was a guilty plea.  King's record was not brilliant but never been to prison.

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation order in the nominal sum of £1 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Geraldine Mary Crimmins

1 count of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary at Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.  (Count 2).

Age:50.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Bayliss above.

Details of Mitigation:

Principal mitigation was guilty plea.  Crimmins was a sad case.

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Count 2:

4 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation order in the sum of £1,984 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

H. Sharp, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for Bayliss

Advocate C. Nicolle for Crimmins

Advocate J. S. Dickinson for King.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Jason Bayliss and Stephen King, you are both heroin addicts.  You went away to England where you bought some 84 grams of heroin for £2,000.  You then agreed to pay Geraldine Crimmins £2,000 to import that heroin into Jersey.  You took possession of the heroin when she arrived and paid her her money.  You then set about selling it.  King, you supplied some of the heroin to two different purchasers, both of whom appear to have overdosed and reacted badly to it, one of them requiring hospital treatment and the other requiring an ambulance to be called. 

2.        The Crown case is that Bayliss played the more senior role in this conspiracy but King was fully involved.  The likely profit of this venture, if everything was sold, was said to be in the region of some £20,000.  We must consider first the starting points.  The Rimmer guidelines say that there is a bracket of 9-11 years for between 50 and 100 grams of heroin.  We must also have regard to the nature and scale of your involvement.  In the case of Bayliss and King we agree with the Crown that the correct starting point is 10 years.  We note that Bayliss is said to be the more senior of the two involved but we do not think that any distinction is sufficient to merit any difference in starting point.  As to Crimmins, her role was that of courier.  She clearly was not as involved as the other two and in our judgment the correct starting point for her is one of 9 years. 

3.        Now turning to Bayliss, as we said, you have a long standing heroin addiction despite the support of your family.  You have attended treatment centres in England, a residential course at Silkworth Lodge, and you have attended at the Alcohol and Drug Service.  You have previous convictions including in particular, a sentence for 3 years for supplying heroin and cocaine in July 2004.  In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea and your determination to try once more to overcome your addiction, and the fact that you have remained drug free in prison is to your credit.  We also note from your counsel the efforts you are making to take advantage of the education service that is offered in prison. 

4.        We have read carefully the reports and we also, as urged by your counsel, take into account the fact that you took one of your customers to hospital when he overdosed, although we have to say we note that neither you nor King appears to have had any compunction about supplying to others, despite that reaction of that customer.  Taking all this into account we think the Crown has made sufficient allowance from the starting point.

5.        In your case, on the one count you face, Count 1 the sentence is one of 6½ years' imprisonment and we discharge the Binding Over Order.  

6.        Mr King, you too have had considerable support from your family but despite this you too have a long standing intermittent heroin addiction.  You also have a poor record but we do accept that it is of a different nature from that of your co-accused Bayliss.  You have never previously been convicted for dealing in drugs and you have not been in prison before.  In mitigation in your case, we take into account your guilty plea, everything that is set out in the background reports and we note that you too are taking advantage of what is available in prison, and we are particularly pleased to hear of the relationship you have struck up with Dr Wade.  We hope very much that this will continue to be of assistance to you when you are released. 

7.        We have considered carefully the many letters and references which have been written on your behalf and they are indeed very supportive.  We also make the same point in relation to your attempts to help the two customers who reacted badly, counter-balanced by the willingness to go on supplying.  All in all, we think that it is correct to draw a distinction between you and Mr Bayliss.  He has only comparatively recently committed a similar offence whereas you have not.  We think that the deduction made by the Crown in your case too is sufficient.

8.         In your case on Count 1; 5 years' imprisonment and on Counts 3 and 4; 5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  That is 5 years' imprisonment in all. 

9.        Miss Crimmins, you are in many ways a tragic case.  It is quite clear from the reports and from the letters of support that you are a woman of considerable talents.  You have been a successful business woman at one stage but you were brought to ruin by your addiction to crack cocaine and subsequently by your dependence on other drugs.  You were in debt at the time of these offences and we accept that you were a ready target for those involved in trading in drugs.  In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea and your cooperation in interview and all the matters set out in the reports as described.  We note too, that you have in the past acted as a counsellor in relation to those who have drug problems.  That of course, is to your credit but it means that you should have understood all the more, the potential damage which is caused by bringing in a quantity of heroin of this nature, and yet you were willing to do so for financial reward.  We have accepted that your role was lesser than the other two but a courier still plays an important and vital role in the importation chain.  Despite the fact that we have reduced the starting point selected by the Crown, we think that their ultimate conclusions were correct.  A deduction of 5 years from the starting point is adequate to reflect the mitigation available to you.

10.      In your case the sentence on Count 2 is one of 4 years' imprisonment. 

11.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs in this case.

Authorities

Rimmer and Others v AG [2001] JLR 373.