Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class B and C.

[2012]JRC227

Royal Court

(Samedi)

7 December 2012

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Liston.

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Anthony Le Pavoux

Michael Patrick Quinn

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

Paul Anthony Le Pavoux

2 counts of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Late one night in July 2012, Quinn and Le Pavoux travelled to France in a small motor boat.  They met a man on the beach and collected 879 grams of cannabis resin and 355 tablets containing a total of just over 2 grams of buprenorphine ("Subutex").  They returned to Jersey and were caught by Customs on the slipway. 

Le Pavoux admitted that he had made all the arrangements and did not explain the nature of the trip to Quinn until they were under way.  Quinn's role was to load and unload the bag of drugs. 

Details of Mitigation:

It emerged in the preparation of reports that Quinn was suffering from Asperger's Syndrome and Le Pavoux had untreated psychological issues.

Previous Convictions:

Fifteen previous convictions, eleven of which are related to drugs. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment.

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 2 years and 9 months imprisonment. 

Count 1:	21 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	21 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 21 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Michael Patrick Quinn

2 counts of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  43.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Le Pavoux above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Le Pavoux above.

Previous Convictions:

Fifteen unrelated previous offences.

Conclusions:

Starting point 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment.

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 15 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	200 hours' Community Service Order (equivalent to 14 months' imprisonment) and an 18 month Probation Order.
Count 2:	200 hours' Community Service Order (equivalent to 14 months' imprisonment) and an 18 month Probation Order, concurrent.

Total: 200 hours' Community Service Order (equivalent to 14 months' imprisonment) and an 18 month Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for Le Pavoux.

Advocate L. V. Marks for Quinn.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        These two defendants imported 879 grams of cannabis resin, with a street value of between £8,790 and £10,550 and tablets of buprenorphine, weighing a total of 2,158 milligrams with a street value of approximately £21,000.  The importation was by rib at the dead of night.  Fortunately they were intercepted at St Catherine's by customs officers when they landed with the drugs.  Le Pavoux has accepted that he was the prime mover; he undertook the drug run to clear a drug debt that he had built up in England because of his drug addiction.  Quinn was persuaded to provide the boat and he accompanied Le Pavoux on the trip.  It is accepted that although he had some suspicions about leaving at night and coming back at night, he did not actually discover from Le Pavoux that the purpose of the trip was to acquire drugs until he was en route to Carteret. 

2.        The starting point for importation of cannabis at this level varies from 2-6 years for between 1-10 kilos, as set out in the leading case of Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.  Here we are dealing with fractionally under a kilo.  The case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046 paragraph 72 makes it clear that where a person has previous convictions for similar offences that can go to increase the starting point.  That is the case in respect of Le Pavoux who has numerous previous drug offences including more than one for importation, but the most serious being one for which he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment (Le Pavoux-v-AG [2003] JCA 127). 

3.        In the circumstances we think that for the cannabis offence the correct starting point for Le Pavoux is, as argued by the Crown, a period of 2½ years.  We think that there should be a Valler uplift of 3 months' to reflect the buprenorphine, so we agree that the starting point for Le Pavoux should be 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment. 

4.        In respect of Quinn there are two major differences.  First of all his lesser involvement and secondly, his lack of previous drug convictions.  In the circumstances we think the correct starting point for Quinn for the cannabis offence is one of 21 months, uplifted to 2 years to take account of the Valler uplift. 

5.        We then turn to mitigation.  In respect of Le Pavoux; he pleaded guilty; he has taken responsibility for persuading Quinn to become involved, which goes to his credit; there is the contents of the background report and the psychological report, and we also take into account all the mitigation which appears on the papers available to us.  Taking all these matters into account we think we can reduce the conclusions slightly. 

6.        Mr le Pavoux, the sentence in your case will be 21 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count. 

7.        Turning to Quinn; he too has pleaded guilty; there has been a gap in his offending for many years which goes to his credit and we have read the background report and the various letters in the papers.  In his case there is an unusual feature.  We have read the psychological report from Dr Shah and he has been diagnosed for the first time with Asperger's Syndrome.  In that connection Dr Shah says that as a result of his condition Mr Quinn is easily influenced by others and vulnerable to exploitation.  Mr Quinn is likely to get into situations without understanding the full picture, the risks or the consequences.  Dr Shah goes on to point out that Quinn has suffered through not having had a diagnosis previously and therefore not having received relevant help and support over the years. 

8.        We think that the correct prison sentence for Quinn for his involvement, and taking into account his mitigation, would have been one of 14 months but, given in particular the contents of the psychological report, we are persuaded that we can in fact, exceptionally in this case, agree to a non-custodial sentence. 

9.        Mr Quinn, in your case we are going to place you on probation for 18 months as recommended by the probation report, but you must be punished as well, and we are going to impose community service of 200 hours, which is the equivalent of 14 months' imprisonment. 

10.      I must warn you Mr Quinn, that if you do not do the community service or do not do exactly what your probation officer says, or if you re-offend, then you will be brought back here and, of course, at that stage the chances are that you would be likely to go to prison.  So this is your chance and we hope you take advantage of it. 

11.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of all the drugs. 

Authorities

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JCA 046.

AG-v-Le Pavoux and Baumgärtner [2003] JRC 075.

Le Pavoux-v-AG [2003] JCA 127.

Valler-v-AG [2002] JLR 383.

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

AG-v-McIntyre [2012] JRC 144.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey.