Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC037

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

(Exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 22 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961.)

21^st February 2011

Rachel Siouville-Stonier

-v-

The Attorney General

Appeal to the Superior Number of the Royal Court, against the sentence passed by the Inferior Number on 16^th November, 2010, following a guilty plea on:

Advocate O. A. Blakeley for the Appellant.

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

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is an application by Rachel Siouville-Stonier for leave to appeal against the sentence of 2½ years' imprisonment imposed by the Inferior Number on 16^th November, 2010, for one offence of supplying 11.2 grams of cocaine. 

2.        The facts can be shortly stated.  In December 2009, at the request of her co-accused Dominic Sullivan, who was known socially to her and her then partner, she agreed to purchase 14 grams of cocaine from a contact at her place of work, for £800.  She duly did this and supplied Sullivan with the cocaine the next day.  It transpired that the cocaine was underweight and in fact weighed only 11.2 grams.  It was accepted by the Prosecution that the cocaine was for Sullivan's personal use and that she did not make any profit on the transaction.  The Police were in possession of the text messages in connection with the supply of the cocaine.  When interviewed the applicant initially lied, claiming the text messages related to a loan, but later in the interview she admitted that she had supplied £800 worth of cocaine which she had acquired through a work colleague. 

3.        The applicant and her co-accused were committed for trial and indicted on 28^th May, 2010.  She and her co-accused had from the start pleaded guilty to the charges in relation to this cocaine, but the Prosecution also alleged that they had conspired to supply cocaine to others.  The trial in relation to that charge took place on 21^st October, and they were both acquitted.  Accordingly the matter came back for sentencing on 16^th November. 

4.        Before the Inferior Number the Crown took a starting point of 7 years and suggested a deduction of 4 years for mitigation resulting in a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.  Advocate Blakeley appeared for the applicant before the Inferior Number, as he does today, and argued that the starting point should be 6 years, that mitigation should reduce the proposed sentence to something in the region of 2 years, and that this could then be met by a sentence of Community Service as an alternative to custody, given that she was a first offender and that she was assessed as being at low risk of re-offending, together with the other mitigation.  The Inferior Number, in its judgment, held that there was no alternative to an immediate prison sentence, that the starting point of 7 years was correct, but that more could be allowed by way of mitigation, resulting in a sentence of 2½ years' imprisonment.  Sullivan was sentenced to 100 hours' Community Service for the single offence of simple possession of the 11.2 grams of cocaine.

5.        On appeal, Advocate Blakeley essentially makes the same points as he did below, save for one matter we shall refer to shortly.  First he says that the starting point should have been 6 years.  The leading authority is of course the case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373, which provides a starting point of 7-9 years for a supply of 1-20 grams of a powdered drug such as heroin or cocaine.  The Court of Appeal said, at paragraph 34 of that case, that although in exceptional cases the starting point could be above or below the band otherwise appropriate, it would seldom be that the starting point for any amount of drug would be below 7 years.  Advocate Blakeley argues that this was an exceptional case, given that it was a one off supply by someone with no previous convictions in circumstances where the drugs were for the personal use of the person being supplied, not for onward sale.  He referred to the case of AG v De Franca [2009] JRC 113, as an example of a case where the Court took a starting point of 6 years.  However, that was a case which involved only 0.3 grams of heroin, compared to an intention, here, to supply 14 grams, albeit that unknown to the applicant only 11.2 grams were in fact involved.  In our judgment the Inferior Number cannot be faulted for taking a starting point of 7 years, which cannot be said to be manifestly excessive.

6.        Advocate Blakeley then turned to mitigation.  There is no doubt that there is indeed much to be said on the applicant's behalf.  We would summarise it briefly as follows:-

(i)        She pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity;

(ii)       She was of previous good character, with no convictions, and indeed much more than that we have seen the references and it is clear that there is very much to be said positively in her favour;

(iii)      After an initial denial she cooperated fully with the police;

(iv)      She has an impeccable work record;

(v)       She has a strong support network from her family and friends, she is full of remorse, she is at low risk of re-offending and she intends to rebuild her life;

(vi)      This matter has had a devastating effect on her life.  Through hard work she has risen to a responsible position in the finance sector; indeed she was being fast-tracked for further promotion.  But as a result of this conviction she has lost her job and will probably find it impossible to rebuild her career in the finance sector.  She has, said Advocate Blakeley, already been punished very severely for what was a momentary lapse on her part;

(vii)     The case has been hanging over her for a long time because of the decision of the Prosecution to pursue the charge in respect of which she was acquitted; and

(viii)    The background report recommended that community service should be the sentence.

Advocate Blakeley argued that more should have been allowed for mitigation and that the resulting sentence should have been something in the region of 2 years.  He then goes on to argue that, given all the mitigation, this was a suitable case for community service as a direct alternative to a prison sentence.

7.        If the matter had rested there this Court would have refused leave to appeal.  We are sitting as a Court of Appeal, not as a Court of first instance.  It is not a matter of what sentence individual members of this Court might have passed had they been sitting.  This Court, sitting as a Court of Appeal, can only intervene if the sentence passed in the court below was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.  This case involved a supply of 11.2 grams of cocaine, coupled with an intention to supply 14 grams.  We cannot possibly say, in the light of the clearly established policy of the courts in this Island, that a prison sentence was wrong in principle for such an offence; nor can we say that a deduction of 4½ years from a starting point of 7 years did not adequately reflect the available mitigation.  A sentence of 2½ years cannot be said to be manifestly excessive and was well within the band of sentences reasonably open to the Inferior Number. 

8.        However, the Court has been presented with important new information which was not presented to the Inferior Number.  Advocate Blakeley has very fairly accepted responsibility for the fact that it was not.  It transpires that following her arrest the applicant provided information to the police about the persons involved in this supply of drugs and such other information about those involved in drug trafficking in the Island as she was able to give.  She is content for the fact that she has given this assistance to be made public.  The Royal Court has repeatedly said that where defendants are willing to give useful information about those involved in drug trafficking to the police and to agree to that fact being made public, the Court will give a substantial reduction in sentence in order to encourage others to give similar information in future, as well as to recognise the assistance given in the particular case.

9.        This Court has no doubt that if the Inferior Number had been aware of the assistance given, and the fact that the applicant was willing for that assistance to be made public, this would have tipped the balance and resulted in a non-custodial sentence.  Accordingly, because of this new factor, the Court grants leave to appeal and allows the appeal.

10.      We impose a sentence of 312 hours community service, and state that this is the equivalent of 2 years' imprisonment.

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG v De Franca [2009] JRC 113.