Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - supply - possession - Class B.

[2013]JRC198

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 October 2013

Before     :

Sir Christopher Pitchers, Commissioner, and Jurats Clapham, Fisher, Crill, Olsen and de Veulle.

The Attorney General

-v-

Liam Thomas Richard Norris

Richard William Christopher Norris

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 27^th September, 2013, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Liam Thomas Richard Norris

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).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 3 and 7).
3 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 4, 6 and 8).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 5).

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 6th March, 2012, Liam Norris was arrested in Jersey for supplying 1,045 grams of cannabis resin (with a street value of £12,000) to Benjamin Bishop (Count 5).  Searches of Liam Norris' home and work premises revealed both personal and commercial quantities of cannabis resin (Counts 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8).  Cash in excess of £45,000 and €66,910 was also seized in his possession. 

Various notebooks and scraps of paper were seized during the searches which a drugs expert later opined contained notes (some in Liam Norris' handwriting) that were consistent with the stock control of commercial amounts of cannabis resin. 

On the same day, Richard Norris was arrested in Staffordshire, where he resided.  A search of his house revealed almost £12,000 in cash.  Police also searched a container in Burton upon Trent rented in Richard Norris' name and found 246.47 kg of cannabis resin inside.  The wholesale value of these drugs in Jersey was £1,482,000 and the Jersey street value was £2,964,000. 

Staffordshire Police also executed a warrant at a commercial unit in Stafford for which Liam Norris paid the rent.  Police found inter alia several bitumen moulds, a band-strapper, a smelting machine and burner, gas canisters and bitumen kegs.  The Crown case was that for the purpose of importation, the cannabis resin was to be secreted within moulded pieces of bitumen constructed at this unit.  In this respect a warrant was also executed at a store in St Peter in Jersey, for which Liam Norris also paid the rent, and where broken pieces of bitumen and various shipping documents were located. 

Surveillance of Liam Norris and Richard Norris in Staffordshire in the month prior to their arrests showed them visiting both the container in Burton and the unit in Stafford. 

Extensive financial investigations revealed that Liam Norris was responsible for transmitting large amounts of money to the Staffordshire area and for exchanging Sterling into Euros.  Phillip McFeat, Kevin Smyth and Carol Howard all admitted laundering the proceeds of Liam Norris' drug trafficking. Liam Norris' mother, Julie Ellis, was also convicted at trial of laundering the proceeds of his drug trafficking. 

Liam Norris entered a guilty plea at a late stage to conspiring with others to import into Jersey the 246kg of cannabis resin found in the container in Burton.  Whilst he admitted previous drug trafficking on a commercial scale in Jersey, he denied any involvement with any importations hidden within bitumen.  It was agreed that he be sentenced in this basis. 

Richard Norris was sentenced on the basis that he had pleaded guilty to conspiring with others between January and March 2012 to import 246kg cannabis into Jersey.  He expressly denied that he was involved with Liam Norris or another other named individual. 

Details of Mitigation:

No previous relevant convictions.  Partner was said to be a positive influence and they have two young children.  Guilty plea at a late stage. 

Previous Convictions:

11 previous convictions.  The majority of the convictions relate to driving offences.  No previous drug related convictions. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 13 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	8½ years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	16 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 8½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Adjournment in relation to Confiscation Hearing sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

When a basis of plea is agreed, that is the basis upon which the Court will sentence. 

It is for the Learned Jurats to decide the entry point and the nature or extent of a discount for plea.  A full one-third discount will be appropriate for those who enter an early guilty plea.  Liam Norris did not co-operate from the beginning and is only entitled to a 25% discount. 

The planned importation was massive.  The Court did not accept that Richard Norris was a mere store-man.  Liam Norris was the distributor of imported drugs in Jersey and has admitted being involved in the wholesale supply of cannabis. 

Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	16 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 8 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Adjournment of Confiscation Hearing ordered.

Richard William Christopher Norris

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 9).

Age:  51.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Liam Norris above.

Details of Mitigation:

Wife and step-children living in the UK.  Family have only been able to visit twice since remanded in custody.  Guilty plea. 

Previous Convictions:

Richard Norris has 47 convictions.  These include offences of violence, offences for possession of an offensive weapon, and 4 convictions for possession of drugs.  His last conviction for possession of cannabis was in 1997. 

Conclusions:

Starting point 12½ years' imprisonment.

Count 9:

8 years' imprisonment.

Total: 8 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Adjournment in relation to Confiscation Hearing sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

See Liam Norris above.

Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.

Count 9:

7 years and 3 months' imprisonment.

Total: 7 years and 3 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Adjournment of Confiscation Hearing ordered.

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

Advocate C. Hall for Liam Norris.

Advocate J. N. Heywood for Richard Norris.

JUDGMENT

THE Commissioner:

1.        We make some general points before passing to the sentence in the instant case.  Firstly, it must be understood clearly and by those who are involved and also, of course, by the public that where a basis of plea has been agreed between the Prosecution and the Defence that is the basis upon which the Court will sentence.  The Court will not take into account matters which might have been part of the original Prosecution case but have not been admitted by the defendant where there has been no trial of other counts on the Indictment nor a Newton Hearing to determine a different factual basis.  Secondly, it is for the Jurats to decide the entry point, the starting point for sentence, and the nature and extent of any discount for plea.  Of course the Attorney General makes submissions and advances conclusions but ultimately those decisions are for the Jurats. 

2.        So far as importation of cannabis into this Island is concerned, that will always be regarded as extremely serious by these Courts where the amounts are substantial.  Firstly, cannabis is not a harmless drug.  The strength of modern cannabis is such that it can have very serious effects on those who abuse it regularly.  Secondly, as this Court and indeed the Court of Appeal has said on previous occasions, because of the large profits to be made by importing the drug into Jersey, where a much higher price can be obtained by those selling it, it is regarded rightly as particularly serious to import cannabis in large quantities and for that reason deterrent sentences need to be passed. 

3.        As I have indicated the Court deals with you on the basis of your plea, not on anything else that was alleged and has not been admitted.  In your case, Richard Norris, that is on the basis that you were involved in what would have been the importation of a massive amount of cannabis into this Island.  The Court does not accept that you were a mere storeman; you knew more about it than that, but you are only to be sentenced for the one potential importation and not for anything else.  In your case, Liam Norris, you were to be the distributor of the importation in Jersey.  You also admitted in your basis of plea that apart from that you had been involved in wholesale supply in Jersey of which the count involving Bishop, the kilo that went to him, was an example. 

4.        Turning to sentence, the Jurats have considered the appropriate starting point for each of you.  On the authorities the range for amounts over 30 kilos is 10-14 years, this is of course massively over 30 kilos, but since the maximum sentence is one of 14 years, some account must be taken for the possibility of other yet more serious cases. 

5.        In your case, Liam Norris, the starting point that the Court takes is one of 12 years' imprisonment.  In each of your cases the Court has considered what is the appropriate discount for a plea.  The full discount of one third is appropriate for those who, from the beginning, are straightforward, admit their guilt and plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.  You have not done that.  Whatever may have been your annoyance at what you perceived to be the treatment of your mother by the Crown, you did not cooperate fully from the beginning.  It is not appropriate for you to receive the full one third discount.  You have entered the plea of guilty which was acceptable so, of course, you are entitled to a discount and the Court allows a 25% discount from the starting point for your plea. 

6.        There is personal mitigation in your case.  You have no relevant previous convictions and the Court has taken into account all the material placed before it by your advocate and a further 12 months reduction in the sentence from the starting point will be allowed for that mitigation, making a total sentence of 8 years.  That will be made up as follows.  Count 1; 8 years' imprisonment, Count 3; 4 months' imprisonment, Count 4; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 5; 16 months' imprisonment, that is a separate supply for which a consecutive sentence could, in principle, have been passed but the question of totality is to be considered and the Court will make that a concurrent sentence, Count 6; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 7; 6 months' imprisonment, Count 8; 1 month's imprisonment. 

7.        In your case Richard Norris, we think the starting point should be slightly lower than that assigned for Liam Norris.  The starting point will be 11 years' imprisonment.  There will be not quite a full discount for a plea of guilty but more of a discount than was given to your son, so there will be a discount of 3 years from the 11 years. 

8.        The personal mitigation is not as strong as your son's but there is some.  There will be a further 9 months in respect of that which means a total sentence on the one count that you face of 7 years and 3 months' imprisonment. 

9.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, though as I indicated to the Crown, it may be they will consider whether they need any of those to be retained for the purposes of the confiscation proceedings which we adjourn to a further date. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Warren Welsh O'Brien Woodward Hunt and Lucas-v-AG [2009] JRC 234.

AG-v-Bishop [2012] JRC 193A.

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

Styles Day Carney and De Sousa-v-AG [2006] JLR 210.