Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC063

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

6^th April 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Jamie Anthony Smith

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 16th January, 2009, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Defendant imported 497 grams of heroin concealed in a surfboard on the roof rack of a car he drove off the St. Malo ferry into Jersey.  When stopped, he made admissions to Customs.  He knew drugs were concealed in the surfboard but did not know the quantity or type.  Was fully co-operative at interview.  At home in Liverpool, he had previously been asked by dealer to "mind" quantity of cannabis which he hid in his mother's garden shed.  Cannabis was stolen and dealer said he would have to pay back £2,500 alleged street value of cannabis.  Defendant agreed to travel to Jersey and undertake trip to France to import drugs because of serious threats made against him and his family in relation to the "debt".

Details of Mitigation:

Youth, full co-operation; early plea; remorse.  Described as gullible and naïve.  Probably manipulated by dealer into incurring "debt" re cannabis.  Defence suggested parcel may not even have contained drugs.  21 at time of offence and too frightened to refuse dealer.  Admitted occasional recreational drug user.  Only child, devoted to mother to whom he had been paying £160 per week "dig money".  Mother in Court.  Exceptional amount of testimonials.  Unwilling courier.  High level of fear for himself and his mother.

Previous Convictions:

3 previous offences, two for possession in respect of which fines imposed.

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Confiscation order in the nominal sum of £1 sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Exceptional case. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs made.

Confiscation order in the nominal sum of £1 made.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Smith was stopped on the 10^th August at the Elizabeth Quay.  He was driving a car with a surfboard on the roof and he had come from St Malo.  He told Customs Officers that he had been surfing at La Rochelle.  An x-ray of the surfboard was undertaken and while this was happening Smith told the Customs Officers that the surfboard contained drugs and he had been told to dress like a surfer.  He had received £1,500 to travel to France by people in Liverpool, whom he has not identified.  The heroin has a maximum street price of £497,000, there were 497 grams of heroin in the delivery.  He is 22 years old, but he did come from Liverpool with the express purpose of importing this deadly drug into Jersey.  He has been threatened and was set up by his dealers.  He has co-operated, without naming his dealer, and the Crown, in the circumstances, is prepared to grant him a full one-third off his sentence although it is unknown where in France he purchased the heroin from.  He is, according to the Probation report, at a low risk of re-offending. 

2.        In Rimmer Lusk and Bade-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 the Court of Appeal has set the tariff for this offence at 14 years which the Crown considers to be appropriate.  He is, as I have said, only 22 years old but he did come to Jersey with the sole purpose of bringing in heroin.  He has been threatened but this is no mitigation, see AG-v-Hogan [2008] JRC 207.  Although he does not have any previous convictions in relation to supply or importation of controlled drugs he did have previous convictions relating to the possession of Class A drugs and he was a recreational user of Class A drugs.  We have a very large number of references all of whom speak very highly of him and we have been told by Advocate Hopwood that he put the stored cannabis in a garden shed from which it was removed and this led to this offence. 

3.        The threat that he received involved shooting him and burning down his mother's house with her in it.  He was, according to his Counsel and we agree with that, entirely manipulated.  The car and the surfboard were purchased for him, he apparently had no idea of the value of the drugs he was importing.  Co-operation was complete, he asked to be locked up and he made no admissions. 

4.        In view of the defence of duress he might have run that argument.  Mr Gafoor addresses him as naive and gullible and unusually so.  He was only 21, he was too frightened to refuse the threats he received, his mother has visited him some eight times since he has been in prison, his father saw his son in prison but he was beaten up in Liverpool.  We have read most carefully the Appeal Court Judgment in Andrews-v-AG [2006] JCA 099 where the Court spoke at length of a minor part which this is.  We have also looked at Durkin-v-AG [2005] JCA 002 and AG-v-Carter [2005] JRC 051. 

5.        In these quite unusual circumstances we are not going to reduce the starting point although he was totally manipulated and he is, as was said, at a low risk of re-offending.  Despite the value of the drugs imported we are still going to reduce the conclusions of the Crown in these exceptional circumstances.

6.        You are therefore sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment and we have taken all the papers into consideration.

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

Authorities

Rimmer Lusk and Bade-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG-v-Hogan [2008] JRC 207.

Andrews-v-AG [2006] JCA 099.

Durkin-v-AG [2005] JCA 002.

AG-v-Carter [2005] JRC 051.