Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - possession with intent to supply - possession - Class A and B.

[2012]JRC166

Royal Court

(Samedi)

20 September 2012

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Clapham, Fisher, Kerley, Crill, Milner and Le Brocq.

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Neagle

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 3 and 4).

Age:  55.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The police executed a warrant at the defendant's home and, in the presence of his son, found 3.46 grams of cannabis (Count 3), plastic bags with traces of white powder in them, £480 cash and suspected deal lists.  The defendant arrived home and was arrested.  He volunteered that there was cocaine in his rucksack, which he said he had been selling to pay his rent.  Three bags of white powder were found in the bag, together with £150 cash.  The powder was analysed and found to comprise a total 18 grams of cocaine and a further (separate) 7 grams of adulterant (crushed paracetamol). 

The defendant was interviewed.  He confirmed that the drugs were his, and that he had been supplying third parties with cocaine.  He eventually admitted that he had been given 40 grams of cocaine "on tick", together with a further 40 grams of adulterant.  He said that he had been mixing the adulterant with the cocaine to bulk it out and that he had already sold a total of 48 grams of adulterated cocaine (Count 1).  He said that he was in financial difficulties. 

He told police that he had made between £20 and £25 profit per gram he sold and that he had to date made £3,600.  He admitted that the deal lists contained details of his customers and that it had been his intention to bulk up the remaining 18 grams of cocaine in the same way before selling it (Count 2).  He accepted that the money seized came from drug trafficking.  He refused to name his supplier. 

For the purpose of sentencing it was admitted by the Crown that the defendant had already supplied 48 grams of adulterated cocaine, and on his own admissions, would have supplied a further 18 grams (unadulterated), making a total of between 66 grams and 94 grams. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; no previous drug convictions; full admissions and cooperation including the writing of his own Indictment in relation to quantities on Count 1.  The defendant also had a good work record and was remorseful.  Low risk of reoffending. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

Conclusions:

Starting point of 10 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	4½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	Falls away
Count 4:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Confiscation Order in the amount of £630 sought, following a determination that the defendant benefitted in the amount of £3,600.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court adopted a lower starting point of 9 years and, taking into account what it said was "powerful mitigation", felt able to reduce the conclusions of the Crown.

Starting point 9 years.

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	Falls away.
Count 4:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Confiscation Order in the amount of £630 made, following a determination that the defendant benefitted in the amount of £3,600.

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

Advocate I. C. Jones for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for being knowingly concerned in the supply of 48 grams of adulterated cocaine over a period of two weeks' (Count 1), and for possessing a further 18 grams with intent to supply (Count 2).  There is a further Count 4 in relation to a small quantity of cocaine found in his possession for personal purposes. 

2.        If the 18 grams of cocaine found in his possession had been bulked up by the defendant in the same way as the 48 grams he could have produced 46 grams of adulterated cocaine.  The total amount of cocaine involved therefore is between 66 grams and 94 grams depending on whether the Court takes into account the intended adulteration of the seized amount. 

3.        Count 1, which is under Article 5c of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 is an offence sui generis and not therefore comprehended within the trafficking guidelines as confirmed in the case of AG-v-Antunes, Saraiva & Vivieros [2003] JLR 144 but given the defendant's account of his involvement in the supply that he has admitted to, the Crown submits that it is appropriate to have regard to the Rimmer guidelines for that offence.  Counsel for the Defence agrees that that is the right approach as do we.

4.        The Rimmer guideline provides a starting point of between 9 and 11 years for cocaine weighing between 50 and 100 grams.  66 grams therefore falls within the lower end of that range and 94 at the higher end.  The Crown seeks a starting point of 10 years. 

5.        Whether or not the defendant would have adulterated the cocaine found in his possession is, in our view, a matter of speculation and we think that the fair approach is to use the lower figure of 66 grams which would give rise to a starting point of 9 years as suggested by the Defence. 

6.        Taking into account what the Crown accepts as the considerable mitigation available to the defendant, the Crown sees no reason to part from the Court's strict policy in relation to drug trafficking offences and move for a sentence of 4½ years' imprisonment in total. 

7.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty.  He has been very cooperative with the Authorities in particular in writing his own Indictment in relation to Count 1.  He is to be treated as a man of good character, in particular there are no previous convictions for drug related offences, and he has been assessed by the Probation Department at a low risk of reoffending.  He has until now led a pro-social lifestyle and has a good work record.  He got involved in drug trafficking, he has informed us, because he was struggling financially and he now deeply regrets his actions, remorse which we accept is genuine. 

8.        He has been heavily involved in the martial arts in the Island, being a black belt in both Judo and Ju jitsu and he regularly taught both adults and children in those sports, and indeed he represented Jersey in the Island Games.  He is supported by his former wife who we believe may be in Court, and his two adult children and he has very good references which we have considered.  He has written us a letter of remorse and we note that he has for some time now been suffering from depression. 

9.        However, notwithstanding all of this mitigation, there is no mistaking the fact that the defendant embarked upon a commercial venture cutting and adulterating cocaine for profit, with the police finding the paraphernalia associated with such an undertaking including digital scales, dealer lists, a mobile with numerous Sim cards and zip-seal bags.  The policy of the Court laid down in Campbell is to impose strong punishments to mark the particularly anti-social nature of drug trafficking.  We think there is very substantial mitigation for the defendant but at the end of the day, after considerable consideration, you can see how long we have been discussing the matter, we find that there is nothing exceptional which would permit us to depart from the clear policy of the Court that those who involve themselves in this evil trade will face condign punishment. 

10.      However, because of the powerful mitigation available to the defendant, in particular the fact that he wrote his own Indictment in relation to Count 1, we are going to reduce the conclusions.

11.      In relation to Count 1 you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, in relation to Count 2 ; 2½ years' imprisonment, in relation to Count 4; 2 months' imprisonment, all to run concurrent with each other which makes a total of 3 years' imprisonment. 

12.      We order the confiscation and destruction of the drugs and the paraphernalia seized.  

13.      Because the recording was not working earlier, we will reiterate the order that we made, namely that we declare the defendant to have benefitted from drug trafficking to the tune of £3,600 and made a Confiscation Order in the sum of £630. 

Authorities

AG-v-Antunes, Saraiva & Vivieros [2003] JLR 144.

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

Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.