Jersey Unreported Judgments

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

[2014]JRC052

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 February 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Nicolas Claude Hubert Andre Didier Tranchant

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

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 14^th September, 2013 the defendant was stopped as a foot passenger on the ferry from St Malo to Jersey.  51 x 8 mg subutex tablets and 5 x 1 mg rohypnol tablets found concealed within the lining of his motorcycle jacket.  He had been stopped either entering or leaving Jersey on two previous occasions and told that he could not export or import subutex.  Subutex had been re-classified as a Class B controlled drug on 17^th June, 2013.  A search of the defendant's home address in Jersey revealed a Condor Ferries currency exchange receipt, 249mg of diamorphine (heroin), a cigarette packet containing £290 in cash and a number of hand-written prescriptions for subutex tablets in the name of the defendant from different doctors in France and a number of pharmacy receipts for the subutex tablets in the name of the defendant.

The defendant admitted importing a total of 485 subutex tablets that he had obtained on prescriptions from doctors in Rennes/St Malo and this over the period June to September.  He admitted that he had imported his monthly prescriptions because he had run up a cocaine debt of €160 and had been threatened at gunpoint to undertake the importations by his dealer.  He had been given €500 to cover his travel and living expenses.  He would obtain the subutex prescription from the various doctors and then obtain the tablets from the pharmacy.  He had received instructions prior to departure as to the location he should deliver the tablets once in Jersey and he was told whether he would need to repackage them into smaller amounts.  After delivery he would then return sometime later to collect the money being the proceeds of the sale of the tablets.  On the return journey to France he would exchange the Sterling into Euros which he would then pass to the person who had threatened him with a gun.  He admitted importing the rohypnol (Class C) and also admitted possession of the 240mg of heroin at his home address which was for his personal use and for which he paid £100 from an unnamed person.

On the illicit drug market in Jersey at 8mg subutex tablet had a street value of £80.  The 485 tablets imported had a street value of £38,800.  The rohypnol tablets had a street value of between £5 and £10 per tablet (£50).   The 240 mg of heroin had a local purchase price of £100 and a street value of £250.

The Crown categorised the defendant as a courier but the role was far greater than the normal "mule".  The Crown's assessment was that he played a significant role in the drug enterprise close to the ultimate organiser.  The Crown took as a "starting point" a sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment.

The Crown had accepted that no more than 50% of the tablets imported would have been used for his own subutex addiction

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty plea on Indictment.  Guilty plea for Count 10 being the importation on 14^th September was inevitable.  Gave various accounts but eventually admitted importing subutex between June and September.  Did not have the benefit of youth or good character albeit his first drugs conviction.

The Defence

The defendant accepted that he must receive a custodial sentence.  The serious charges were the importation of subutex.  Drugs used to alleviate the side effects of heroin.  Still a Class C drug in the UK.  Suggested Crown's "starting point" too high.  The Crown accepted 50% used by the defendant therefore commercial element was approximately 242 tablets with a street value of £19,000.  He was chosen by the dealer due to the debt, existing subutex addiction and his ability to speak English.  Suggested that the lower end of drug trafficking tree.  The trust imposed in him was not great.  The "starting point" was therefore 3 years.  Guilty plea.  Had a valid prescription for the subutex in France.  Young man whose life had been blighted by use of drugs since the age of 13.  Had been addicted to subutex since the age of 19.  He had used time in prison constructively and it was the first time that he had been drug-free 16 years.  Detoxification had been a very painful experience.  Being arrested in Jersey had been a blessing in disguise.  Had he been in prison in France he would still have been given his subutex prescription.  Suggested a sentence of no more than 15-18 months imprisonment

Previous Convictions:

Before the Guernsey Courts of being concerned in the importation of prohibited goods other than controlled drugs.

In France: theft with acts of violence, fraudulently obtaining fuel, travelling on public transport without a ticket.

Conclusions:

Starting point 3½ years' imprisonment.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Defendant to be sentenced for a number of importations of subutex.  Over a period of four months he had imported 485 tablets of subutex with a street value of £38,800.  Half of those tablets were consumed by him for personal use with the remaining half being a commercial importation.  He imported 5 rohypnol tablets and had a small personal amount of heroin.  He had given a variety of explanations to the Customs Officers, saying that he had been threatened to undertake the importations.  Court confirmed its previous policy that it did not take into account such threats.  That there were good policy reasons for this.  The Court agreed with the Crown that this role went beyond that of a normal courier.  Specified the steps undertaken by the Defendant and confirmed that it agreed with the Crown that the Defendant had a significant role in the drugs enterprise.

Initially when seeing the papers the Court was concerned that the Crown's Conclusions had been rather generous.  In June 2013 subutex had been reclassified from a Class C to a Class B controlled drug.  As a result the maximum sentence had increased from 5 years to 14 years.  He had imported a significant quantity of tablets.  In mitigation had guilty plea and was entitled to full reduction.  He had a record but not as bad as others and no previous for drugs.  The Court had regard to all of the information contained within the papers before it.  The Court concluded that the Crown's Conclusions were the correct sentence.  The Court expressed the hope that Tranchant used his time in prison constructively, to keep off the drugs and to start his life afresh once released. 

Deportation

The recommendation was not opposed. The importation of drugs was a serious offence and was of detriment to the community.  He had no ties to Jersey and therefore there were no Human Rights considerations.  The Court made recommendation for deportation.

Conclusions granted.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains a number of drug counts, and as your counsel has put it, the most serious are those involving the importation of subutex.  Here you have accepted that over a period of some 4 months you imported 485 subutex tablets which had a street value in Jersey of some £38,000.  Approximately half of those, it has been conceded by the Crown as a maximum, were for your personal use and the remaining half were for commercial trading.  In addition there are 5 rohypnol tablets with a street value of £25 and a small amount of heroin, 245 milligrams, which was for personal use and has a street value of £250. 

2.        You have given a variety of explanations over the period of the inquiries taking place which makes it difficult to know where the truth really lies.  The Court does not take into account threats which have been made against you.  We have many previous decisions which show that to be so and there are good policy grounds for not doing so.  If you involve yourself with people who supply drugs you have to accept that if things go wrong from time to time they may threaten you with physical harm or, indeed, some other harm. 

3.        The Crown says, and we accepted, that your role in this case goes beyond that of the normal courier who has been given drugs to import.  You obtained prescriptions from a number of different doctors and obtained the tablets from pharmacies.  You imported the drugs in accordance with the instructions you had been given and you left them at various places in Jersey for collection.  The instructions you were given were quite specific in that connection.  You received your expenses to cover travel and subsistence and the Crown concludes, and we agree, that you played a significant role in this drug enterprise.

4.        When we first read the Crown's papers we thought the Crown had been rather generous in its conclusions of 2 years' imprisonment in all.  We note that in June/July last year the classification of subutex was changed from a Class C drug to a Class B drug and as a result the maximum sentence goes up for these offences in relation to the importation of subutex from 5 years to 14 years and this was a considerable quantity of the tablets.  But we note that under the older regime when subutex was a Class C drug in the case of AG-v-McIntyre [2012] JRC 144 a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was imposed where the street value of the drugs imported was just over £10,000, and here we are looking at considerably more than that. 

5.        We have taken into account, by way of mitigation, your guilty plea, which we think does have a full value.  We have taken into account that your record is not as bad as some we have seen and that you have no previous drugs convictions; and we have taken into account all your personal background and the other material which is before the Court.  Having regard to all those circumstances, although we thought originally that the Crown had been lenient in its conclusions we think that that is the right sentence that we should impose upon you. 

6.        A period in custody, as you have already found can be used constructively and we very much hope that you will continue to use the prison term to which you are now going to be sentenced constructively, to keep off drugs, to use the advantage of the courses that are available to you in the prison so that when you come out you are returned to France and you will be able to start your life again and you will find much better rewards than you have had in the last 10 years.

7.        In the circumstances you are sentenced on Count 2, to 2 years' imprisonment; on Count 3-10 inclusive, to 2 years' imprisonment; concurrent; on Count 11, to 1 month's imprisonment; and Count 12, to 1 month's imprisonment, and all of those shall be concurrent, so the total sentence is 2 years' imprisonment.

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

9.        We now come to the question of deportation.  This has not been opposed by your counsel and we think she was right in that respect.  The importation of drugs is taken to be a serious offence in this Island and accordingly the first limb of the test as to whether it is desirable that your deportation be recommended is certainly passed.  There are no ties which you have to this jurisdiction so under the European Convention on Human Rights there is nothing that we need to take into account for you personally and accordingly we are going to make a recommendation to the Lieutenant Governor that when your sentence of imprisonment has been served you should be deported.

Authorities

AG-v-McIntyre [2012] JRC 144.

European Convention on Human Rights.