Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - Class A.

[2015]JRC035

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 February 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Nathan James Wareing

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 19^th December, 2014, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  24.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 21^st July, 2014, the defendant went to an address in St Helier to collect a package of fishing bait.  On the way he was offered a lift by a friend.  Having collected the package the men went to the friend's home address.  Whilst at the address the defendant opened the package and found a substantial number of tablets in plastic bags.  The defendant concealed the tablets in a wardrobe and left the property with the intention of returning the following day. 

On 22^nd July, 2014, Customs Officers executed a warrant to search the friend's address and the tablets were discovered.  The friend was arrested.  On 23^rd July, 2014, Wareing attended Police Headquarters with a "confession letter;" he was interviewed under caution and made admissions.  The 797 tablets were subsequently found to be MDMA. 

Despite the Crown's reservations regarding the veracity of Wareing's account, and in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the Crown accepted Wareing's account and the pleas entered.  Wareing had acted as a minder for a commercial quantity of MDMA. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; good references and good employment. 

Previous Convictions:

Five convictions for 32 offences, 4 of which involved drugs. 

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Crown agreed to sentence Wareing on his version of facts; therefore the Court proceeded on that basis. Wareing went to pick up a package from an individual's home address; he was told that it was fishing bait.  En-route he was given a lift by Mr Laffoley.  The package was collected and the men went to Mr Laffoley's home.  It was there that Wareing opened the package and discovered that it was drugs.  Instead of going to the police or having nothing further to do with the drugs, Wareing hid the drugs in a wardrobe, intending to come back the next day.  However the next day Customs Officers found the drugs at Laffoley's address.  There were 797 tablets of MDMA with a street value of approximately £16,000. 

In effect Wareing had been a minder for the drugs for a short period.  Every link in the chain of supply for drugs is an important one. 

The Court agreed with the Crown that Bonnar was not directly applicable to sentencing as the offence of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug can be undertaken in such a variety of different ways.  However, Bonnar provided some assistance with a starting-point.  The Crown suggested an 8 year starting-point and the Court agreed with this approach however, given the low level of Wareing's involvement considered that a starting-point of 7½ years was appropriate. 

In mitigation a full 1/3 reduction was available for a guilty plea.  However, the Court did not agree with the proposition that Wareing wrote his own indictment, therefore no additional reduction in sentence was granted.  Wareing had an excellent employment record, and a supporting family.  The Court read carefully the SER and reference letters. 

The Court noted that it has repeatedly made reference to the damage that Class A drugs cause; it is a serious matter to be involved in any way in the supply chain.  Although Wareing had limited involvement the Court did not agree that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate.  Wareing was sentenced to 3½ years' imprisonment and an order was made for the destruction of the drugs. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The Crown has agreed you are to be sentenced on the version of the facts which you have put forward and so we will proceed on that basis.  That version is that you were asked to pick up a package from an individual's address and take it to the individual at the harbour.  You were told that it was fishing bait.  On route you were offered a lift by a Mr Laffoley.  Having collected the package you then went with Mr Loffoley to his home and, whilst there, you opened the package and realised that it contained drugs.  But instead of going to the police or having nothing further to do with the matter at all, you hid the drugs in Mr Laffoley's wardrobe intending, apparently, to come back the next day and return them to the address from which you had just collected them.  However, the next day Customs executed a search warrant and found the drugs at Mr Laffoley's address in the wardrobe.  There were 797 tablets of ecstasy, which is a Class A drug, with a street value of some £16,000.  In effect, you were a minder for these drugs for a short period and the Court has said repeatedly that every link in the chain of supply of drugs is important. 

2.        As the Crown Advocate has pointed out the Bonnar guidelines (Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626) do not necessarily apply to the offence of being concerned in the supply of drugs because of the infinite variety of circumstances which are covered by that offence.  The Crown has suggested a starting point of 8 years because Bonnar suggests an 8-10 year starting point for between 500 and 1,000 tablets.  The Court agrees that in view of the nature of your involvement in this case it is right to go below the Bonnar guidelines and the Court thinks a starting point of 7½ years is correct. 

3.        In mitigation Advocate Haines has put forward a number of matters on your behalf.  He has referred, first of all, to the guilty plea and we certainly agree that you are entitled to a full one-third discount for that.  However the Court does not agree that this is a case where you wrote your own Indictment in view of the other evidence which was or would shortly become available to the police.  He has emphasised your excellent work record and we have read the very fine reference from your employers and we fully accept that you are a hard worker with a good work record.  You do not have a clean record in terms of previous convictions but, apart from driving a vehicle under the influence, you have been out of trouble since 2008 and we take that into account in your favour and we commend you for it.  You also clearly have the support of your family, as they are here in Court and we have seen that in the report, and we have read your letters and the other letters that we have been supplied with.  We have also considered carefully the contents of the background report which speaks well of you and suggests the possibility of probation and community service. 

4.        However, the Court has repeatedly referred to the damage that Class A drugs does to so many young people and the serious view which it takes of those who become involved in any way in the supply chain of these pernicious drugs.  In the circumstances, even allowing for your limited involvement in this case and the mitigation, we cannot agree to a non-custodial sentence.  However taking into account the nature of your role and the mitigation, we do think we should reduce the conclusions of the Crown. 

5.        The sentence of the Court is one of 3½ years' imprisonment.

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

Authorities

Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626.

AG-v-Whelan [2005] JRC 045.

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.