Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession with intent to supply - possession - supply.

[2015]JRC066A

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-

Aaron Daniel Higgins

Stuart Daniel Hutchison

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

Aaron Daniel Higgins

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

Age:  25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Higgins and Hutchison were arrested at St Clement's Recreation Ground.  Higgins, who was in sports clothes, had £2,000 in cash in his shorts pocket.  Hutchison had 7 grams of heroin in a zip-lock bag in his possession.  A search of the changing facilities where Higgins had been playing squash revealed that Higgins' sports bag contained 7 more identical zip-lock bags containing a total of 48 grams heroin.  A search of Higgins' home address revealed a small bag containing 1·34 grams of MDMA powder (Count 2) and boxes containing 18 Stanozolol tablets (Count 3). 

At Indictment Higgins admitted supplying 7 grams of heroin to Hutchison for £2,000 (Count 1) and said that of the 48 grams in his sports bag he would have supplied approximately 38 grams (Count 4) and kept 10 grams for his own use (Count 5).  The total amount trafficked by Higgins was therefore in the region of 45 grams. 

Hutchison stated that half the heroin that he had purchased from Higgins was for his own use (Count 7), and the remainder was to be sold to a friend at cost (Count 6). 

Details of Mitigation:

Both men pleaded guilty.  Higgins had recently returned to the Island after several months on remand in a Balinese gaol where he had been introduced to heroin while awaiting trial on a false allegation of theft of a watch.  On release he had struggled to come to terms with his addiction.  

Previous Convictions:

Higgins had a number of minor convictions including two for simple possession of cannabis (the most recent of which was 7 years ago). 

Conclusions:

Starting point:- 9½ years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	6 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 6 years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £2,010.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Defence lawyers advanced that greater allowance should be made for the mitigation available, with which the Court concurred reducing the Crown's conclusions slightly:-

Count 1:	4½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	5½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5½ years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order made in the sum of £2,010.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Stuart Daniel Hutchison

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 6).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 7).

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Higgins above.

Details of Mitigation:

Both men pleaded guilty.  Hutchison had developed a dependency on opiates while in hospital in India following a motorcycle accident. 

Previous Convictions:

Hutchison had a slightly more extensive record than Higgins which included two convictions for simple possession of cannabis (the most recent being 5 years ago, since which he had remained out of trouble). 

Conclusions:

Starting point:- 7 years' imprisonment. 

Count 6:	3½ years' imprisonment.
Count 7:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3½ years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £90.43

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Defence lawyers advanced that greater allowance should be made for the mitigation available, with which the Court concurred reducing the Crown's conclusions slightly:-

Count 6:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 7:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3 years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order made in the sum of £90.43. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

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

Advocate N. MacDonald for Higgins.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Hutchison.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendants stand to be sentenced for drugs offences; the most serious relates to Higgins who has pleaded guilty to supplying Hutchison with 6.95 grams of heroin with a street value of up to £7,000 and possession of 38 grams of heroin with a street value of up to £49,000 with intent to supply.  He is also to be sentenced for a 3 year lesser drugs offences. 

2.        Hutchison has pleaded guilty to possession of that 6.95 grams of heroin, the Crown accepting that he intended to use half personally and the other half to be supplied by him to a like-minded friend on a not-for-profit basis. 

3.        Applying the Rimmer guidelines (Rimmer and Others-v-AG [2001] JLR 373) the starting point for offences between 1 and 20 grams of a Class A drug is between 7-9 years' imprisonment and between 20 and 50 grams, 8-10 years' imprisonment. 

4.        In total Higgins was involved in 45 grams of heroin.  The Crown submits that he was closer to the sources of supply than his co-accused.  In its view he was in a business of commercial supply and move for a starting point of 9½ years' imprisonment.  Allowing for mitigation the Crown seeks a sentence for Higgins of a total of 6 years' imprisonment.  

5.        For Hutchison the Crown moves for a starting point of 7 years' imprisonment, reduced to 3½ years after mitigation. 

6.        Both defendants have previous convictions, including some drug offences; Higgins is assessed at a high risk of re-offending and Hutchison at a medium risk. 

7.        In terms of mitigation, we have taken in account all of the submissions put to us by their counsel.  In terms of Mr Higgins, he has pleaded guilty and is remorseful; we have a good letter from him and from his parents, who are in Court, and others.  It is a tragedy for his family that Mr Higgins should find himself in this situation.  He had a good upbringing and education and is an accomplished sportsman, having played tennis and squash for the Island.  The family will, of course, be aware however of the strict policy of the Court when it comes to trafficking in Class A drugs.  We have been impressed by the constructive use Mr Higgins is making of his time in prison and he is, of course, now drugs free.  

8.        As for Mr Hutchison he has pleaded guilty and has also given us a good letter showing that he is remorseful.  He has faced a personal tragedy recently in the loss of his mother and sister, and he was particularly co-operative with the police.  He too is drugs free and is making very constructive use of his time in prison.  

9.        Taking all this into account, the Court agrees with the conclusions of the Crown in relation to the starting points, but does feel that it can allow slightly more for each defendant in terms of mitigation. 

10.      The Crown have allowed an element of mitigation for Hutchison in relation to social supply, but in the context of this case, we doubt whether it constitutes mitigation and we were assisted by the helpful dicta of the Deputy Bailiff in the case of the AG-v-Mackenzie [2011] JRC 171 in this respect, but it is worth being reminded of the policy of the Court in relation to the trafficking of Class A drugs as set out by the Court of Appeal in Campbell Malloy and Mackenzie [1995] JLR 136, quoting from page 144 of that case:-

"We have no doubt that the courts should indeed play their part in supressing the evil of drug trafficking which has the capacity to wreak havoc in the lives of individual abusers and their families.  Lord Jane, C.J. in R v Aramah (7) referred in the context of Class A drugs to the "derogation and suffering and not infrequently the death which the drug brings to the addict" (4 Cr. App. R. (S.) at 408-409).  Sadly the lives which are blighted by the abuse of drugs are usually young lives."

We would interpose to say that that is exemplified for us here today, but carrying on with the quote:-

"We agree that circumstances have changed since this court issued its guidelines in Clarkin in1991.  The courts cannot by themselves provide a solution to the problem but they can play their part by adopting a sentencing policy which marks the gravity of the crime.  We desire therefore to make absolutely clear what is the policy of the courts in this jurisdiction in relation to the sentencing of offenders who import or deal in drugs on a commercial basis.  That policy is that offenders will receive condign punishment to mark the peculiarly heinous and antisocial nature of the crime of drug trafficking."

11.      Turning therefore to the sentences which the Court will now impose:- Mr Higgins in relation to Count 1 you are sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment, Count 2; 1 year's imprisonment, Count 3; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 4; 5½ years' imprisonment, Count 5; 2 years' imprisonment, all concurrent.  That makes a total of 5½ years' imprisonment. 

12.      Mr Hutchison, you are sentenced as follows:- Count 6; 3 years' imprisonment and Count 7 to 18 months' imprisonment, all concurrent, making a total of 3 years' imprisonment.  

13.      Finally we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  

Authorities

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

AG-v-Mackenzie [2011] JRC 171.

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