Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC206

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th November 2010

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Tibbo and Kerley.

The Attorney General

-v-

Rachel Siouville-Stonier

Dominic Daniel Sullivan

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 25th January, 2009, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Rachel Siouvulle-Stonier

1 count of:

Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).

Age:  31.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Siouville-Stonier pleaded guilty to one count of supplying 14 grams of cocaine to her co-defendant, Sullivan, at a price of £800.  Sullivan pleaded guilty to simple possession of the cocaine.  The case against them was proved by text messages passing between them. 

Siouville-Stonier was 31 years old and of previous good character.  She fell to be sentenced on the basis of commercial supply to Sullivan, although on the basis that she had not made any personal profit from the deal but had acted as intermediary in the supply to Sullivan. 

The Court accepted that Sullivan (43) had begun using cocaine in a bid to alleviate the symptoms of sleep apnoea but had become addicted. 

Details of Mitigation:

Siouville-Stonier was of previous good character, had admitted the offence in interview and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  The Probation Service assessed her as posing a low risk of re-offending.  She had lost her career in banking as a consequence of committing the offence. 

The Court agreed with the Crown that applying Rimmer, Lusk and Bade-v-AG the starting point bracket for supplying 14 grams of cocaine was 7-9 years' imprisonment and did not demur at the starting point of 7 years' imprisonment used by the Crown in this case. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

Conclusions:

Count 2:

3 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £800 sought with 3 months' imprisonment in default. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court stated that the fact that the drugs were in fact used for personal consumption by the purchaser was not a mitigating feature of the offence of supply committed by the supplier, who could have no control over what the purchaser might do with them. 

Count 2:

2½ years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £800 made or 2 months' imprisonment in default. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

Dominic Daniel Sullivan

1 count of:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 4).

Age:  43.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Siouville-Stonier above.

Details of Mitigation:

Sullivan had no relevant previous convictions which, save for a recent offence of drink driving, were of a minor nature and dated back more than ten years.  He had admitted the offence in police interview and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  The Probation Service assessed him as posing a low risk of re-offending.  He had voluntarily sought assistance from the Drug and Alcohol Service since committing the offence who were able to confirm that he was and remained drug-free. 

Previous Convictions:

No relevant previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Count 4:

4 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court stated that the fact that the drugs were in fact used for personal consumption by the purchaser was not a mitigating feature of the offence of supply committed by the supplier, who could have no control over what the purchaser might do with them. 

Count 4:

100 hours' Community Service Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate O. A. Blakeley for Siouville-Stonier

Advocate I. C. Jones for Sullivan.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Stonier has pleaded guilty to supplying Sullivan with what was intended to be 14 grams of cocaine but which turned out to be underweight by 2.8 grams.  Sullivan has pleaded guilty to possession of that cocaine on the basis, accepted by the Crown, that it was for his personal use. 

2.        Stonier, who is thirty one, was introduced to drugs by her father at a young age.  She first started using cocaine when working in Switzerland in 2007.  Her habit progressed to problematical levels and was instrumental in her decision to return to Jersey.  She mixed and socialised in Jersey with cocaine users.  According to the social enquiry report, she says that her partner at the time suggested that she use her contact with a person heavily into cocaine use, to supply Sullivan who was a mutual friend.  She told the Probation Department that she was reluctant to get involved but she says that she yielded to the pressure being placed upon her.  She said she made no profit on the transaction but was simply helping a friend. 

3.        Notwithstanding her use of drugs, Stonier has a strong work ethic, having worked in the finance industry for sixteen years, holding a position of responsibility and earning £50,000 per year.  As a result of these offences she has lost her job and has probably irreparably destroyed a promising career.  She has been living off benefits but is currently undertaking a three year LLB course in law where she hopes in time to carve a new career.  She has not been taking drugs since this offence.  She is assessed at a low risk of offending and the Probation Department recommend a community based sentence.  She has no previous convictions. 

4.        Sullivan is 43 and is divorced with three children whom he supports.  Despite some difficulties in his youth he began working for UPS Logistics in 1989, rising to the position of CI manager from which position he resigned in June of this year, as a result of this offence.  He suffered from sleep apnoea and tried cocaine in 2007 to combat it.  He found the drug helpful but also enjoyed the euphoric effect it produced as a consequence of which he developed a cocaine habit where he was using a gram a day over an eighteen month period.  He would normally purchase 2-3 grams at a time but was offered 14 grams for £800, a greater quantity than he had purchased before, but which worked out cheaper.  It was for his personal use, as the Probation Department agree, indeed as do the Prosecution.  He has now lost his job, damaged his previously good reputation and is also on benefits relying on his family for financial support.  He does have previous convictions, most over ten years ago, but none drug-related.  He is also assessed at a low level of re-offending; the Probation Department again recommend a community sentence.  He has sought the assistance of the Alcohol and Drug Service, whom he has seen seventeen times.  Regular testing demonstrates that he is free of drug use and, in the opinion of the service, has now overcome what was a dependence on cocaine. 

5.        The Crown submit that in the case of Stonier the recommendation of the Probation Department is impossible to follow; the offence is so serious in its view that only a custodial sentence can be justified.  This was, it says, a commercial supply to someone it described as a customer and the Rimmer guidelines apply.  The Crown move for a starting point of 7 years in her case with a substantial reduction for mitigation to 3 years. 

6.        In the case of Sullivan the Crown maintain that this was a significant wholesale quantity of drugs which in itself passes the threshold for custody; the mischief of supplying, it says, exists because of the mischief of consumption. 

7.        In the guideline case of AG-v-Buesnel [1996] JLR 265 the Superior Number moved away from the previous policy of the Court to always imposing a custodial sentence for the possession of Class A drugs unless there were exceptional circumstances.  Quoting from the headnote to the case:-

"The policy formerly adopted by the Royal Court for sentencing offenders for the possession of Class A drugs, namely that the offence would attract a custodial sentence unless there were exceptional circumstances, had been too rigid: the court needed a discretion to be able to tailor a sentence to an individual offence and offender.  Nevertheless, it remained true that in most cases, possession of even small amounts of Class A drugs would be punished; whether it was appropriate to pass a custodial sentence, a fine or a community service order depended upon the circumstances of the particular case.  Where the quantity of the drugs was not small or the offence was aggravated, a custodial sentence would normally be imposed; where, however, it appeared that an attempt at reforming the offender was likely to succeed, e.g. if he had been of previously good character and the quantity of drugs was small, a sentence allowing for his attendance at a rehabilitation centre might be passed (although even in those cases additional punishment might well be appropriate).  It was important that these principles should be applied by all the sentencing courts in the Island and that they had been adopted in the present case..."

8.        Turning again to Stonier, Mr Blakeley argued that the case against her is exceptional and we can therefore properly depart from the Rimmer guidelines which he accepts would otherwise apply.  The substantive ground put forward by him is that this was a one-off supply to one person for his personal use.  However, in our view, how the person to whom drugs are supplied in this quantity deals with them is beyond the control of the supplier and cannot be a relevant factor; nor indeed is the profit made by the supplier or lack of it, a relevant factor.  We conclude that this is not an exceptional case and can only be properly described as a straight-forward commercial supply of a Class A drug. 

9.        We have considered the mitigation very carefully.  It is true, as is so often the case, that the lives of offenders who come before us have been destroyed with tragic consequences.  Indeed the destructive effect of these drugs on the lives of both these defendants is a stark reminder of the need for the clear and strong policy of the Court.  We have considered all the mitigation put forward by Mr Blakeley, her plea of guilty, her co-operation with the police, the loss of her career and the new career she is now embarking upon, her letter that she has written to us and the remorse and the regret which she expresses in that letter, and of course we have also considered the other letters that have been given to us and we note the support of her husband and family.  However, having regard to the guideline cases binding upon us, we see no alternative to a custodial sentence but we are going to make a greater allowance for mitigation. 

10.      The position in the case of Sullivan is different.  He faces a less serious offence and is not subject to the Rimmer guidelines.  Buesnel, as we have said, makes it clear that the Court has much greater scope.  The difficulty for him is that the amounts involved cannot be described as small and it would therefore be usual for the Court to be considering a custodial sentence.  We note however that Buesnel does place considerable emphasis on reform.  We are impressed by the fact that this defendant, Mr Sullivan, has attended the Alcohol and Drug Service voluntarily and has beaten his addiction, proved by regular drugs testing.  We think that this conduct is commendable and having taken into account all of the personal mitigation, which we will not reiterate in this judgment, we do feel able to impose a community sentence as a direct alternative to imprisonment. 

11.      Stonier, you are sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment. 

12.      Mr Sullivan, you are sentenced to 100 hours' Community Service which is the equivalent of 4 months' imprisonment. 

13.      In terms of the Confiscation Order, the defendant Stonier does not oppose what the Crown seeks in that respect.  We declare that the defendant Stonier has benefited from drug trafficking to the extent of £800 and we make a Confiscation Order in the sum of £800 and we impose a default sentence of 2 months' imprisonment, consecutive. 

14.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and any drug-related items seized in this case. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Buesnel [1996] JLR 265.