Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A.

[2013]JRC018

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 January 2013

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham, Kerley, Nicolle, Crill and Le Brocq.

The Attorney General

-v-

Jeremy Edwin Howard

Thomas Oliver Howard

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 23^rd November, 2012, following guilty pleas to the following charge:

Jeremy Edwin Howard

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Jeremy and Thomas Howard, who are father and son, conspired together with Kieran Bisson to import 246g of heroin (enough for almost 5,000 deals).  The conspiracy involved the purchase of a car, two boats, GPS equipment and extra fuel tanks.  Bisson was sent to the UK to collect the heroin.  He was then to travel to France where he would be met by Jeremy and Thomas (though Thomas tried to pull out).  The planned route avoided the well patrolled port and instead made use of a small boat to collect the drugs from the French coast. 

Bisson was intercepted in the UK and the drugs were seized.  He was charged and sentenced by the UK authorities and received a suspended sentence with unpaid work requirement, curfew and electronic tagging. 

The offence took place just five months after Jeremy had been released from prison after serving a 13 year sentence for conspiracy to import heroin. 

Details of Mitigation:

Prosecution: guilty plea.

Defence: Not at the top of the conspiracy.  He had borrowed money to pay for rapid detox and undertook the importation to clear the debt.  Regretful regarding the involvement of Thomas and Bisson, and the effect on his granddaughter. 

Previous Convictions:

17 convictions, 12 of which are for drug offences. In 2004 he was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment (upheld on appeal) for conspiracy to import 1 kg of heroin. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 13 years' imprisonment.  8 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Compensation Order hearing adjourned until 22^nd March, 2012. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

This was a sophisticated attempt.

Conclusions granted.

Thomas Oliver Howard

1 count of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Jeremy Howard above.

Details of Mitigation:

Prosecution: guilty plea, youth - subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.  Became involved only due to the influence of his father and in the hope that his family would be reunited.  Sole carer for his young daughter (whose mother had committed suicide.  Thomas had found her body). 

Defence: urged a degree of mercy.  Thomas was on the periphery - acquired a boat and GPS and provided £1,000 (though the Court commented that Thomas also admitted suggesting Bisson as a co-conspirator).  Acted out of a confused sense of loyalty to his father, vulnerable and Jeremy took advantage of this.  The exceptional degree of hardship which would be caused to his daughter if he received a custodial meant that this could properly be taken into account. 

Previous Convictions:

10 convictions, all of which are motoring related. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 12 years' youth detention.  4 years' youth detention.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Compensation Order hearing adjourned until 22^nd March, 2013.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

No doubt that this offence would normally result in youth detention.  Individually his mitigating circumstances were not enough to avoid custody, but together they constitute exceptional circumstances.  The Court stated it had taken time served into account otherwise the sentence would have been higher. 

Count 1:

Starting point 11 years' youth detention.  312 hours' Community Service Order, or 2 years' youth detention in default, and a 2 year Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

Compensation Order hearing adjourned until 22^nd March, 2013.

Miss E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Corbel for J. Howard.

Advocate L. V. Marks for T. Howard.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on one count of conspiring to evade fraudulently the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug which was heroin.  The organisation was, we are told by the Crown, a fairly sophisticated attempt to import a large quantity of heroin by buying two boats, a Shogun and some navigational equipment, with a planned route of importation which was designed to reduce the high risk involved in importing a drug through a well-controlled port, because you would be using a small boat to bring the drugs back from the French coast.  The amount involved is 246 grams of heroin with a potential street value of something in the order of £246,000 and enough for almost 5,000 individual deals.  You should both be well aware of the enormous damage which heroin does to our community and that is reflected in the sentences which the Court passes for offences of this kind. 

2.        Jeremy Howard, you committed this offence some 5 months or so after you were released from custody for a very similar offence.  There is in the Court's mind no doubt at all that you were reasonably close to the main suppliers of drugs and we think the starting point of 13 years' imprisonment, following the guidelines laid down in Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373, is correct.  We take into account that you have pleaded guilty.  We note that your offence is aggravated by the short period since release; we have taken into account that it is a second offence and we have taken into account that you have taken responsibility, rightly, for the trouble that you have got your son and his friend into.  But having said all that we cannot really find anything to criticise in the Crown's conclusions. 

3.        Accordingly, on the application of the Court's usual policy, you are sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

4.        Thomas Howard, there is no doubt that in normal circumstances an offence of this kind would leave you in youth detention.  You have, as it happens, an amount of mitigation that goes in your favour.  Individually those elements of mitigation would not be enough to keep you out of custody.  As it happens the Court takes the view that the combination of circumstances is one we have not previously seen and together they make up exceptional circumstances that we think allow us to reach the conclusion that a custodial sentence can be avoided.  I will list them so that those who read this decision in the future will know that this combination is extremely rare.  It is not just of course, things that we do frequently see; a guilty plea and your youth, your cooperation; it is the additional fact that the organisation was by your father who, it is clear from the reports, at one stage you idolised.  And your relationship with your father is nothing with which the Court would want to criticise but in this sense only, to say that you must open your eyes to his conduct, which is not something to be emulated, to be repeated in you at all.  We have taken into account what is in the psychological reports and a raft of references, the individual trauma that you have sustained by finding your girlfriend who had taken her own life, and of course, the result of a very small child with no-one else to support her.  We have also taken into account that you have already had some 6½ months in custody and in all the circumstances, we think that it is appropriate that we can avoid a custodial sentence in your case. 

5.        We intend to place you on probation for a period of 2 years and you will have to follow the directions of the probation officer and attend such courses as you are told to attend.  We are also going to require you to perform 312 hours' Community Service.  The alternative to that Community Service would have been 2 years' youth detention and we have fixed on that period of 2 years on the assumption that the starting point for a custodial sentence would have been, in your case, 11 years, and then it would have been reduced for all the mitigating reasons which I have given.  But in particular we have taken into account time served otherwise it would have been a higher figure.

6.        I must warn you that if you do not do what the probation officer requires you to do and if you do not perform the Community Service, and it is a long period over which you are going to be performing it, you will be at risk of being brought back to this Court and sentenced again.  In those circumstances the Court would be looking very closely indeed at a custodial sentence.  You do have a combination of circumstances here which is leading the Court to this conclusion, and it is a chance for you and you had better take advantage of it for yourself and for your child, your family. 

7.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG-v-Hasson [2004] JRC 036.

AG-v-Durkin and Others [2004] JRC 163.