Jersey Unreported Judgments

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

[2013]JRC012

Royal Court

(Samedi)

18 January 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Keith Paul Connor

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

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Customs officers intercepted a package addressed to Connor which had been posted from Lahore, Pakistan, which contained 4,800 Diazepam 10mg tablets in 480 blister packs.  A search of his home revealed a neatly organised stash of a further 3,256 diazepam tablets together with 200 lorazepam, 330 nitrazepam tablets and an envelope containing £1,005.  A laptop computer was seized from a coffee table, also a small personal quantity of cannabis resin.  Conner, a self-employed fitness trainer, and his wife, a compliance officer for a law practice, were arrested.  Both were interviewed, both gave "no comment" responses to questions relating to the drugs and both refused to provide bank disclosure authorities.  When it was discovered that the seized laptop was encrypted Connor claimed that it was not theirs and that he did not know the access code.  By the time of sentencing the specialist forensic unit to which the laptop was sent had still been unable to access it.  Although seven connected bank accounts were traced, some in the name Sutcliffe previously used by Connor, no suspicious transactions were noted.  Connor informed the author of his probation report he had arranged similar importations since becoming addicted to benzodiazepines more than a year earlier, finding the local market unable to satisfy his need.  Connor sought to be sentenced on the basis that the drugs were for his personal use.  Sentencing was adjourned to obtain expert opinion on Connor's drugs use claims and suggestions that the imported drugs might be sub-standard.  The drugs were confirmed as normal pharmaceutical strength.  A substance misuse expert assessed Connor's usage claims as "unlikely", at variance with clinical findings, and at a level such that he would have been rendered intoxicated and unable to fulfil his role as a fitness trainer.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea of value in relation to Count 1 (as the Crown did not have evidence of Connor arranging the importation).  Defence distanced Connor from supplier - internet purchase so no close relationship; family difficulties from 2009 - wife unwell but condition not diagnosed until 2011, stresses caused him to self-medicate and became reliant.  Defence suggested a community-based sentence would be adequate. 

Previous Convictions:

Six offences at age 18/19 - fined for handling stolen goods, failing to surrender to bail and criminal damage, 12 months' youth detention imposed by Bradford Crown Court for possession of drugs with intent to supply, 3 counts.  Crown not aware of the previous drugs convictions, in the name of Sutcliffe, until after Indictment). 

Conclusions:

Total: 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order in the sum of £1,005 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court supported the Crown's contention that intended use was not an element relevant to an offence of importation, quoting Conquer at para 10, and approached Count 1 as a commercial importation.  5 year maximum for commercial importation, this importation quite different to the cunning plot in Page, considered all mitigation placed before the Court but could not see any way to avoid a custodial sentence. 

Total: 12 months' imprisonment. 

Compensation Order in the sum of £1,005 made.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Miss E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment that contains five counts, the most serious of which is the importation of Class C drugs.  Customs officers found a parcel addressed to you.  It had been posted in Pakistan nine days earlier and it was found to contain 4,800 Diazepam 10 mg tablets with a local street value of £7,200.  In addition to that, there were found in your premises, some other Class C drugs, 3,256 Diazepam tablets, 200 Lorazepam tablets, 330 Nitrazepam tablets and a small amount of cannabis.  You are charged in relation to the last four quantities of drugs with possession only. 

2.        The first question for the Court has been the basis upon which the drugs were imported in relation to the most important charge.  The Court considers that it has to approach this importation on the basis that it was a commercial importation of the drugs.  We had regard in that context to the case of Conquer-v-AG 2002/73 in the Court of Appeal where at paragraph 10 the Court says this:-

"The offence under Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 is one of simple importation.  The gravity of the offence depends on the quantity and value of the drugs which are imported and the class to which they relate.  The larger the quantity that is imported the less likely that it will be that the Court can infer that the drugs will be used by the importer alone." 

3.        We have had regard to the quantity of drugs, in particular to the fact these are 4,800 tablets when you already had 3,256 tablets in your flat.  If we were to have accepted your rate of usage that would amount to some 4 months' use of the imported drugs, as I say, without touching on the ones you already had.  So that is the first reason we think that we should treat this as a commercial importation.  The second reason is that of course if you were using the drugs not at the same rate as you have indicated, then it would be more than 4 months usage which again makes it even more likely that this would be for commercial use rather than for personal use and in considering that matter we have had regard to Mr Gafoor's report, which we have looked at, and there are really three points which he makes in that report.  The first is that he does not think it is likely that you would have been able to fulfil your role as a fitness instructor on the amount of valium that you say you were taking.  Secondly, that you would have had withdrawal symptoms, which he does not report, if you had been taking such amounts of drugs and there was merely the one seizure which I think is mentioned since you ceased using them.  The third is that you would not have reacted in Police Headquarters in the way that you said you did to such a modest dose.  So for those reasons we are not inclined to accept that this was an importation for personal use and, of course, once one accepts that position, it also means that one is less likely to accept the explanation put forward for the cash which you had in the flat which is a surprisingly large amount of money.  We are not quite clear why you did not put it in the bank. 

4.        We have considered the question of delay.  We recognise that this case has been outstanding for some time.  On the other hand you have asserted from the outset that these tablets were for personal use and the Crown is entitled to dispute that, and in those circumstances the Crown is not getting help from you as to who owned the computer, to check out your story, and we think that you are not entitled to rely upon the delay in bringing the matter the trial. 

5.        The maximum sentence is 5 years' imprisonment and we have given careful thought to whether imprisonment is the right sentence to impose in this case.  As it is a commercial importation of Class C drugs, and there are no exceptional circumstances, we think that a custodial sentence is correct and it saddens us that this is so because there is undoubtedly an enormous amount of mitigation which your counsel has very carefully put before the Court and it is on the papers and we have looked at it very carefully. 

6.        We do think that this case is quite different from the case of AG-v-Page Childs and Keane [2012] JRC 131, not only in the context of the sophistication of the importation, but also in the context of the amount and value of the drugs that was imported.  But, as I say, we do not see our way clear to not imposing a custodial sentence for a commercial importation of Class C drugs. 

7.        So we are going to sentence you as follows, on Count 1; 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, on Count 3; 1 month's imprisonment, on Count 4; 1 month's imprisonment, on Count 5; 2 weeks' imprisonment.  They will all run concurrently making a total of 12 months' imprisonment. 

8.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

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

Conquer-v-AG 2002/73.

AG-v-Page Childs and Keane [2012] JRC 131.