Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation Class A - motoring - uninsured against third party risks.

[2015]JRC064A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

30 March 2015

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Kerley, Nicolle, Crill, Liston and Grime.

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Lee Hollings

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 23rd January, 2015, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

First Indictment

1 count of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 3).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 (Count 2).

Age:  40.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

On Saturday 13^th September, 2014, the defendant was reported by a member of the public who believed he was under the influence of drink or drug and was about to drive a vehicle, a blue MG.  Police attended the scene and, after speaking to the defendant, arrested him on suspicion of driving whilst unfit through drugs.  The Police were unable to obtain medical evidence to form the basis of any charge and this matter was not pursued.  However, further investigations revealed that the defendant had purchased the blue MG the day before (Friday 12^th September) and had been given temporary insurance on that day to drive the car to his insurance company to arrange his own insurance cover.  The defendant had not arranged for his own insurance cover and admitted driving the vehicle on Saturday 13^th September when it was not insured.  It was also revealed that the defendant had been disqualified from driving in 2010 by the Royal Court but, following legal argument in the Royal Court, it was ruled that the disqualification period had expired and the defendant was no longer disqualified from driving.  The defendant was released on bail pending further investigations. 

Second Indictment

Customs and Immigration Officers intercepted a postal package containing 3.01 grams of heroin and delivered a substitute package to an address in St Helier.  The defendant was observed to attend at the address and handle several pieces of mail including the substitute package.  When he exited the property the defendant was arrested and found to be in possession of items which had been in the substitute package. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea. 

Previous Convictions:

50 previous convictions comprising 136 offences, including 20 previous drug offences comprising possession, possession with intent to supply, cultivation and importation offences.  In 2010 the defendant was sentenced for drug offences bearing similarities to the current charges (AG v Hollings [2010] JRC 032). 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 3:

Starting point 7½ years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 2:

3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.

Total: 4 years and 3 months' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order sought in the nominal amount of £1. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court held that the Crown had made an overgenerous reduction for mitigation in respect of the drug importation offence, but that the sentence sought for the driving offence was too high. 

First Indictment

Count 3:

Starting point 7½ years' imprisonment.  4½ years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 2:

1 month's imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.

Total: 4 years and 7 months' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order made in the nominal amount of £1. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of importation by post of 3.01 grams of heroin into the Island with a street value of £3,000 and one lesser count of driving without insurance.  The defendant, who lives in England, visits the Island where he has a former partner and a young daughter.  He has an unenviable record having accrued fifty convictions comprising 136 offences, most being drug-related.  He has two convictions for importing drugs into Jersey in 2008 and 2010.  He has been dealt with by all of the options available to the Court and has breached virtually every order by way of reoffending and/or non-compliance.  He has admitted to the Probation Department a pro-criminal lifestyle and there are outstanding proceedings against him in the Preston Crown Court where he has pleaded guilty to supplying cocaine. 

2.        Applying the Rimmer guidelines (Rimmer-v-and Ors-v-AG [2001] JLR 373) the starting point is in the range of 7-9 years imprisonment with this quantity of drugs and the Crown seek a starting point of 7½ years and a sentence of 4 years, taking into account mitigation, for the importation and a separate 3 month, consecutive, sentence for driving without insurance. 

3.        The Court accepts the position of the Crown that, whilst the defendant may have used some of these drugs himself, the remainder would have been used to fund further importations.  The defendant declined the opportunity of a Newton Hearing to determine his initial stance that all of these drugs were for his personal use. 

4.        In our view there is very little mitigation available to the defendant.  He really had no alternative other than to plead guilty.  We have no letter from him or, indeed from anybody else, and he has expressed no remorse.  It is clear to us that he is deeply imbedded in the organised drug network and we accept the starting point of the Crown of 7½ years.  The deduction made by the Crown for mitigation is, in our view, overgenerous and we are therefore going to increase the conclusions.  We accept, however, that the 3 months sought for the insurance offence is too high. 

5.        Under the First Indictment, Count 3, you are sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment and under the Second Indictment, Count 2, to 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive; that makes a total of 4 years and 7 months' imprisonment.

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

Authorities

Rimmer-v-and Ors-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG v Sandland [2011] JRC 079.

AG v Proctor [2010] JRC 157.

AG v Hollings [2010] JRC 032.

AG v Bailey [2009] JRC 077.