Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class C.

[2012]JRC144

Royal Court

(Samedi)

27 July 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew John McIntyre

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  44.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

At the time of offending the defendant was resident in Brighton.  He had been unemployed for over three years due to an injury. 

On 23^rd March, 2012, the defendant travelled to Jersey. Prior to travelling he had concealed in his rectum two pill bottles, containing whole and broken tablets totalling the equivalent of 113x8mg and 64x2mg tablets of buprenorphine (Subutex).

On arriving at the harbour the defendant was stopped by a customs officer.  The defendant was evasive when questioned about his reasons for travelling and who he was visiting.  He was arrested and an x-ray revealed suspicious items.  He was therefore further detained.  During that evening a call was made to the defendant's mobile telephone that was traced to a local public call box. 

The following day the defendant admitted that he had two bottles of subutex concealed internally.  A urine test gave a positive result for cannabis and benzodiazepines, but not opiates.  He was taken to see a doctor to assist in removing the bottles.  Prior to the bottles being recovered he made the unsolicited comment "They usually just pop out". 

In interview the defendant admitted that he had lied to the customs officer when first stopped.  He admitted that he had brought the drugs to Jersey and intended to stay for one week and wean himself heroin.  The subutex was solely for his personal use.  He intended to take an 8mg tablet each morning and evening and "top up" with the 2mg tablets during the day. 

However the amount of drugs imported far exceeded the quantity required by the defendant for this purpose.  The quantity of drug claimed by the defendant to be needed in order for him to "detox" was assessed by experts as being beyond the usual therapeutic range, particularly as he had tested negative for opiates. 

The potential profit on the importation was in excess of £10,000.  The Crown contended that, having regard to the quantity of the drug, the potential profit and the manner of importation, this was clearly a commercial enterprise. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; although having regard to the circumstances of the importation a full third discount was not merited. 

Previous Convictions:

40 previous convictions including 2 drug offences. 

Conclusions:

The Crown had regard to the circumstances of the offending, the mitigating factors and content of the reports and moved:-

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant had imported two bottles containing 1,032 doses of subutex.  The drug had a UK purchase price of £500 - £700 and a local value of £10,320.  The Court applied the factors set out in Page and Ors-v-AG [2012] JRC 131 and was satisfied that this was a commercial importation for profit.  The accounts given by the defendant in interview were viewed as unreliable.  The Court had regard to the defendant's guilty plea, although this was viewed as inevitable given the circumstances of the importation, his remorse and physical disability.  The Crown's conclusions were correct however the Court was mindful of the fact that a lengthy term of imprisonment would result in the defendant, a disabled man, losing his accommodation in England. 

The Court found that the defendant had benefitted from drug trafficking to the amount of £3,500.  The defendant had no realisable assets and the Court therefore made a Confiscation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Confiscation Order made in the nominal sum of £1.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on a single charge of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug, Subutex.  You brought in, concealed internally, two bottles of Subutex and when the Doctor was with you, you made the unsolicited comment that "they usually just pop out".  The amount of Subutex involved was apparently sufficient to provide 1,032 doses; the purchase price was estimated by the expert officer at £500-£700 and the commercial street value in Jersey to be £10,320. 

2.        We are applying the guidelines of the Superior Number in the case of Page and Others-v-AG [2012] JRC 131 and so we have regard to the quantity of the drugs and the street value to the closeness with the supplier and to the other matters which are set out in that case. 

3.        Your counsel has suggested that we should treat this as a case where you were acting on your own.  The Court is satisfied that this was an importation for profit.  There was a substantial quantity of the drugs; there was the comment which you made to the Doctor which carries the connotation that you may have been carrying drugs in this way previously.  You must, we think, have had some idea of how you were going to sell the drugs:- you had no address to go to; no contact; you had apparently not been in Jersey before, and yet there were two Jersey telephone mobile numbers in your phone and somebody telephoned your mobile number from a public call box.  So the accounts which you have given have, the Court thinks, been unreliable. 

4.        We therefore look at the right sentence that we think should be imposed against that background given that you have the mitigation of having pleaded guilty, although that guilty plea was inevitable given the drugs were found concealed internally.  But nonetheless you are entitled to some credit for that.  The Court has given you credit for your remorse which we accept and we have read carefully the letter which you have given to us and we have taken account of the physical disability which you have. 

5.        We think that the Crown's conclusions of 18 months' imprisonment for this quantity of importation with the mitigation which we have mentioned would probably have been about right and absent one further piece of mitigation that is the sentence we would have imposed.  However, we are told that you have a flat in Brighton to which you wish to return and that it may be kept for you by the local authority provided that you return to it within 52 weeks.  If you were to receive a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment less the remission for good conduct you would be out in 12 months.  The Court is going to sentence you to 15 months' imprisonment to give some margin to ensure that you will be able to take up that accommodation assuming of course you remain entitled to the remission for good conduct while you are in prison.

6.        Accordingly you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment on this Indictment. 

7.        We also order the drugs be forfeited and destroyed. 

Authorities

Page and Others-v-AG [2012] JRC 131.