Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC192

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20^th October 2010

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Tibbo, King, Le Cornu, Kerlry, Nicolle and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Alan Charles Hudson

Mark William Hutchison

William John Menzies Prentice

Christopher Samuel Whitelaw

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charge:

Alan Charles Hudson

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  40.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Professional importation of 2 kilo cocaine secreted in specially constructed compartments in van. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and good character. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 16 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:

9½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Highly professional importation.  Each defendant played a role. 

Starting point 15 years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:

8 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

Mark William Hutchison

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hudson above. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, good character, role as courier and other mitigation.

Previous Convictions:

None relevant. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 14 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Confiscation Order in the nominal sum of £1 sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Highly professional importation.  Each defendant played a role. 

Starting point 15 years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

Confiscation Order in the nominal sum of £1 ordered. 

William John Menzies Prentice

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  37.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hudson above. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and other mitigation. 

Previous Convictions:

5½ years in 2003 for importation of a substantial quantity of cannabis resin. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 16 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:

9 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Orders for determination of benefit and Confiscation Order to be postponed sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Highly professional importation.  Each defendant played a role. 

Starting point 15 years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:

8 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

Order for determination and Confiscation Order postponed and counsel ordered to attend to fix a date for matter to be heard within 6 months of conviction. 

Christopher Samuel Whitelaw

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  33.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hudson above. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and good character. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 15 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:

8 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Highly professional importation.  Each defendant played a role. 

Conclusions granted. 

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. Hall for Hudson.

Advocate E. L. Jordan for Hutchison.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for Prentice.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Whitelaw.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendants have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import 1,959 grams of cocaine, with a street value of £156,000, the largest ever seizure of cocaine by the Jersey police. 

2.        It was, in the words of the prosecution, a highly professional and sophisticated importation.  The drugs had been deeply secreted in the chassis of the van driven by Hutchison.  The defendants used a firewall system of communication with mobile and other phones which allows information to be passed but which makes detection very difficult.  Painstaking and laborious forensic analysis of records of some 20 phones enabled the police to mount this prosecution.  We understand that DS Kennea spent some seven hundred hours studying the records and compiling the reports necessary to bring together the huge volume of telephone call evidence.  The Court would like to highly commend the police for their efforts in bringing this prosecution and thus in combating what the Court has often described as an evil trade, and the Court would like in particular, to commend the work of DS Kennea and DS Mcgranahan. 

3.        None of the defendants, barr one, are apparently drug users and this therefore was an entirely commercial operation. 

4.        We have given careful consideration to the submissions on starting points and the respective roles of the defendants in drug trafficking and without rehearsing those submissions again in this judgment, it is the view of this Court that, consistent with the pleas and the facts as presented, this was a joint enterprise in which all the defendants played different but equally important roles and that their involvement in the drugs trade is the same.  We therefore conclude that the correct starting point in the case of each defendant is one of 15 years' imprisonment. 

5.        Turning to the individual defendants, taking first Mr Hudson; he is age 40; he has historic convictions none of which are drug-related, and is therefore to be treated as of good character.  He has pleaded guilty.  We have considered the mitigation put forward by his counsel; his letter of remorse and the other testimonials together with having reference to the social enquiry report and we conclude that the appropriate sentence is one of 8 years' imprisonment.

6.        Second, Mr Prentice.  He is 36 years of age; he was the first to plead guilty, which we agree in a case of conspiracy should be rewarded, but against that he has a poor record, having been sentenced to 5½ years imprisonment by this Court on the 16^th October 2003 for his involvement in the supply of 23 grams of cannabis resin.  We have considered the mitigation put forward by his counsel, his letter and the other testimonials and the Social Enquiry Report having regard to all of the documentation before the Court, we conclude that 8 years is the appropriate sentence. 

7.        Third, Mr Whitelaw; he is aged 33; he has minor historic convictions and is to be treated as being of good character and he too has pleaded guilty.   Mr Haines has submitted that he was also co-operative in that he recently provided a statement against his co-accused Hutchison and indicated a willingness to give evidence if required.  It is the policy of the Court to reward such co-operation as it said in the case of AG-v-Robinson and Ely [2006] JRC 106:-

"The really important factor in your case is that you said you were willing to give evidence against your co-accused and made a statement, and the Court has repeatedly said that where offenders are willing to give evidence against other offenders in the drugs world and help bring them to justice, the Court will give a considerable deduction from the sentence to reflect that and to encourage others to do it."

And we endorse those comments. 

8.        However, the key word is the reference to justice.  In the view of this Court the statement signed by the defendant is quite irreconcilable with the formal basis of his plea and his admitted role, attempting to place as it does almost the entire responsibility of this importation on the defendant Hutchison.  In our view the interests of justice would not have been served if that evidence had been given in Court and it should therefore receive no credit. 

9.        Otherwise we have considered the mitigation put forward by his counsel; we have considered his letter and the other testimonials and the social enquiry report.  We particularly commend him for the efforts he has made in making the most of his time in prison.  In our view the appropriate sentence is one of 8 years. 

10.      Finally Hutchison; he is 29 years of age; he is of good character and has pleaded guilty.  We have considered the strong mitigation put forward by his counsel, the testimonials and the social enquiry report.  Having taken into account all of the documentation before the Court, we conclude that the appropriate sentence is that suggested by his counsel, namely one of 5 years' imprisonment. 

11.      Mr Prentice you are sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment; Mr Hudson you are sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment; Mr Whitelaw you are sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment; Mr Hutchison you are sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. 

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

Authorities

AG-v-Robinson and Ely [2006] JRC 106.

Rimmer and Others [2001] JLR 373.

Durkin and Howard-v-AG [2005] JLR 12.

AG-v-Carter, Allan and Hume [2005] JRC 051.

Hamilton and Owens-v-AG [2010] JCA 136A.

R-v-Aranguren (1994) 99 Cr App R 347.

AG-v-Miah 2002/210.

AG-v-Trinidade 2000/141.