Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - motoring - dangerous driving - drugs - possession with intent supply - Class B.

[2013]JRC248

Royal Court

(Samedi)

6 December 2013

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Le Cornu, Morgan, Fisher, Kerley, Liston and Blampied.

The Attorney General

-v-

Oliver Samuel Hall

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 1^st November, 2013, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

First Indictment

1 count 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 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Dangerous driving, contrary to Article 22(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1).

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Dangerous driving - at about 10:30pm on Saturday 20^th April, 2013, the defendant drove his motorcar at a speed of almost 90 mph westbound along La Route de la Liberation.  He was racing two other cars which were driving at about 68 mph.  Coming up out of the underpass beneath the Castle Street roundabout, the defendant lost control on the sweeping left hand bend towards the junction with Gloucester Street, veered out of control for a distance of 132 metres, hitting two lamp posts, the second of which finally brought the vehicle to a stop.  The indentation left in the front passenger door by the collision with the second lamp post was so deep that it was likely that had any passenger been in that seat serious injuries would have been caused. 

Drug trafficking - on 9^th July the defendant was arrested by customs officers whilst sitting in his car in St Lawrence.  Customs officers found a vehicle key whilst search of the car.  The defendant told them it was for a van which he owned.  Officers located the van later at Lion Park and searched it.  The search revealed bars of cannabis resin weighing some 72 kilograms and with a Jersey street value of between £700,000 and £1,000,000.  The drugs were professionally wrapped to minimise the escape of odour.  The Crown advanced its case for sentencing on the basis that the defendant was a fairly high level, trusted link in the transportation chain, who was close to the source of the cannabis (Count 1). 

A subsequent search of the defendant's home address revealed a small amount of personal-use cannabis resin (Count 2). 

The defendant was interviewed in respect of both the driving offence and the drugs offences following his arrest for the drug offences.  In respect of all matters he exercised his right to silence. 

In his probation report however, and in a letter to the court at sentencing, he sought to claim that he was not a high placed link in the supply chain, but had been threatened into minding the cannabis just the day before his arrest on the basis that if he did so this would serve as satisfaction of a £7,000 drug debt which he owed unnamed persons for cannabis he had previously obtained from them. 

The Crown did not accept this account and a short Newton Hearing took place.  The Court considered that the defendant's evidence "raised more questions than it answered", but found that he had willingly transported the drugs in his own vehicle across two parishes and had played an important part in the chain of supply. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity. 

Previous Convictions:

13 previous convictions, including 4 drug offences, one of which was for possessing ecstasy with intent to supply, for which he had received a 240 hour Community Service Order from the Royal Court.  Other matters included driving offences and offences of violence. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  5½ years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment, plus 2 years disqualification from driving.

Total: 6 years' imprisonment plus 2 years' disqualification from driving.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

For the possession of cannabis with intent to supply, a 9 year starting point was wrong.  The starting point should be 11 years.  The appropriate sentence was 7 years' imprisonment. 

The dangerous driving had been a shocking offence which had created an obvious and serious risk to other road users.  The appropriate sentence was 8 months' imprisonment and this should properly be consecutive to the drugs sentence, but allowing for totality it would instead run concurrently. 

There would be no separate penalty for the offence of simple possession of cannabis. 

The Prosecution did not invite the Court to proceed to confiscation. 

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.  7 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	No separate penalty.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

8 months' imprisonment, concurrent, plus 2 years' disqualification from driving from date of release from prison.

Total: 7 years' imprisonment plus 2 years' disqualification from driving from date of release from prison.

Forfeiture and destruction ordered.

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on two counts, one of dangerous driving and one of possession of cannabis with intent to supply.  I deal first of all with the possession of cannabis.  You had in your possession 71 kilograms of cannabis resin with intent to supply and, according to the guideline case of Campbell Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136, we have to assess your involvement in drug trafficking, bearing in mind that quantities in excess of 30 kilograms would normally lead to a starting point for sentence of 10 years plus. 

2.        We have heard you give your evidence in the circumstances where the basic facts, which are set out in the Crown's summary, have been agreed and we have had to consider what your level of involvement was against that background.  You were responsible for moving this very large quantity of drugs from a field in St Aubin to a car park in St Lawrence.  You were responsible for storing the drugs in a removal van and being ready to provide the key to those who were masterminding its supply.  You knew the identity of at least one person who was right at the centre of the drug trafficking.  The Court has found that your account prompted almost as many questions as the evidence was intended to answer, but we really take account of those three points that I have just mentioned about which there is no dispute and which, for us, point to a significant involvement in drug trafficking. 

3.        In those circumstances we are surprised at the Crown's conclusion that the starting point ought to be taken at 9 years and we have made that plain, both to Crown counsel and to your counsel in the course of the speeches which were made.  We do not think 9 years is the right starting point for an offence of this kind with the involvement which, as I have indicated, we have found that you had.  In the circumstances we think the appropriate starting point is 11 years' imprisonment.

4.        We have then to consider what amount of discount against that starting point should be allowed for the mitigation that there is.  We give you a full credit for your guilty plea notwithstanding that the evidence against you was really quite persuasive in any event.  We note that you have previous convictions involving drugs including a previous conviction for drug trafficking.  We allow you some additional mitigation but we consider that the right sentence on this count is 7 years' imprisonment. 

5.        We now turn to the driving charge.  The evidence on this was that at about 10:30 at night on 20^th April there was a car crash and your car was found straddling, at right angles, the central reservation at just east of the junction with Gloucester Street.  You claimed that you were doing some 45-50 mph and lost control of the car.  However, subsequent investigation showed that the police were able to prove that your actual speed, shortly before losing control, was 87 mph and the police were also able to ascertain that you were racing two other cars at the time, each of which was travelling at 68 mph.  This was absolutely dangerous, reckless driving for which a custodial sentence is entirely appropriate and a significant custodial sentence at that.  You have only to contemplate that somebody, like your wife, might have been out there in the area at the time and you could have killed them and the Court considers that this driving offence is extremely serious.  We consider that the right sentence on this charge would be one of 8 months' imprisonment.

6.        The two offences call for consecutive sentences because they took place considerably apart in terms of time and there is no connection with them.  However, although they should be consecutive sentences we propose to make the sentence concurrent on the grounds of totality. 

7.        We have considered carefully everything that has been said to us and the bundle of material which has been passed up to us but, in our view, the correct sentences are therefore 7 years on the drug charge and 8 months on the driving charge, to run concurrently, making a total of 7 years' imprisonment.  In addition to the sentence on the driving charge you are disqualified from holding a licence for 2 years which will run from the date of your release. 

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

Authorities

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