Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Anderson [2015] JRC 116 (27 May 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2015/2015_116.html
Cite as: [2015] JRC 116
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A.
|
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Kerley, Olsen, Liston, Sparrow, Le Breton and le Cornu. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Ryan Taylor Anderson
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 10th April, 2015, following a guilty plea to the following charge:
|
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 1). |
Age: 21.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On Thursday 15th January Customs intercepted an envelope contained a piece of paper folded around a silver foil vacuum packed sachet. It contained 100 tablets containing methylenediozmethylamphetamine (MDMA). The tablets were estimated to have a wholesale purchase in the UK at between £800-£1,000 and the Jersey Street value of £2,000.
The defendant was seen entering the communal hallway of the flats of where the package was to be delivered that day. Customs delivered a substitute envelope the next day and the he was arrested after collecting the substitute envelope.
The defendant claimed he had heard two acquaintances discussing something valuable were to be delivered to an address. He denied ever knowing that the package would contain drugs. He told officers he had hoped to benefit from the contents which he thought might be tickets or vouchers.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea and the benefit of residual youth.
Previous Convictions:
21 previous offences, although none were in relation to drug offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
4 years' imprisonment. |
Breach of Probation Order: No separate penalty.
Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £105.
Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court felt able to reduce the conclusions in light of the mitigation.
|
Count 1: |
3 years' imprisonment. |
Breach of Probation Order: No separate penalty.
Confiscation Order made in the sum of £105.
Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.
R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced in respect of one count of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, namely ecstasy. The ecstasy was concealed in an envelope which was intercepted by customs officers and replaced with a substitute envelope which you collected from a letter box belonging to a flat in Bagot Manor Court. When you were arrested that substitute envelope had been secreted by you in the waistband of your underwear. You were not frank with customs officers during interview and you were unable to offer any credible explanation for your actions. Your record is a poor one, although you have no previous convictions for drugs offences, and whilst you have pleaded guilty and you deserve credit for that plea, the Court notes that you did not plead guilty on the earliest occasion possible and it might be said that such a guilty plea was, to some extent, inevitable given the fact that the substitute envelope was found secreted by you on your person.
2. You are also in breach of a Probation Order imposed upon you on 10th February, 2014, for an offence of assault. You do not have a good history for responding positively to the non-custodial options that are available to a sentencing Court and we note that you are assessed as posing a high risk of reoffending within the next 12 months.
3. The Court's policy in connection with the sentencing of commercial importation of Class A drugs is clear and, having regard to the Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 626, we accept that the correct starting point for this offence is one of 7 years' imprisonment.
4. The Court notes however the mitigation that is available to you; it notes your relative youth; it notes that you do not have previous convictions for drugs offences, and it notes that there are some signs that you are changing your attitude. The Court was impressed in part by your letter and by the other letters of support that you have received.
5. Before passing sentence we deal with the matters raised in the Attorney General's statement, in the light of the submissions made by your counsel we declare you have benefitted from criminal conduct to the extent of £2,000 and we order the confiscation of £105 as requested by the Attorney General.
6. Turning to sentence for the offence, the Court is not persuaded that it is possible to move in the direction of a non-custodial option for the reasons that I have already set out. There are no circumstances which are sufficiently exceptional that would permit the Court to move from its stated policy. However, in the light of the mitigation, we are prepared to reduce to a significant extent the conclusions moved for by the Crown.
7. Therefore you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. We impose no separate penalty for the breach of the Probation Order because, for the reasons set out by the Crown, this factor has already been taken into account.
8. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities