Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - possession - Class A.

[2015]JRC154B

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 July 2015

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Fisher, Marett-Crosby, Sparrow, Morgan and Clapham

The Attorney General

-v-

Lloyd Driscoll

James Peter Morgan

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 29^th May, 2015, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Lloyd Driscoll

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 1).

Second Indictment

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).
2 counts 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 2 and 3).

Age:  51.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Driscoll & Morgan were involved in a joint enterprise to import into the Island 154 grams of heroin containing on average 35% by weight of the Class A drug diamorphine.  They arrived on a flight from Manchester, Morgan carrying the drugs internally Driscoll acting as minder and being the contact.  The street value of the drugs was estimated at £154,000. 

Driscoll - while in custody he was found to be in possession of a small personal quantity of a heroin/cocaine mixture in his cell at HMP La Moye; a further small quantity of a similar mixture was intercepted when it arrived at the prison in a letter posted to him and 4 'Subutex' tablets (Class B) were posted to him at an address outside the prison with the intention they would be passed on to him. 

Details of Mitigation:

Driscoll was co-operative on arrest, mainly co-operative during interview, guilty pleas on indictment.  Married with a grown up son he had been unemployed and a heroin addict for many years.  Treated as 'minder' in the importation. 

Previous Convictions:

Extensive UK criminal record although only one drug conviction of a serious nature - possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, for which he received a 3 year sentence. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment - Starting point 11 Years' imprisonment - Crown took view that although rôles differed both were equally culpable:-

First Indictment

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 of the First Indictment.
Count 2:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 8 years and 3 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First indictment - Court agreed with defence that starting point too high taking account of the circumstances and involvement of the defendants:.

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.

First Indictment

Count 1:

6 years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 of the First Indictment...
Count 2:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 7 years and 3 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

James Peter Morgan

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 1).

Age:  61.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Driscoll above.

Details of Mitigation:

No admissions during interview but early guilty plea in lower court, explained role to Probation.  Single, long-term unemployed, history of drug abuse.  Treated as 'mule' in the importation. 

Previous Convictions:

Several previous convictions for offences of dishonesty but no previous drug convictions.

Conclusions:

First Indictment - Starting point 11 Years' imprisonment - Crown took view that although roles differed both were equally culpable:-

First Indictment

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment.

Total: 7 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First indictment - Court agreed with defence that starting point too high taking account of the circumstances and involvement of the defendants:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.

First Indictment

Count 1:

6 years' imprisonment.

Total: 6 years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

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

Advocate C. A. Fox for Driscoll.

Advocate A. M. Harrison for Morgan.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        You both were involved in the importation of 154 grams of heroin into Jersey with a street value of up to £154.000 locally.  You, Morgan, carried the drugs concealed internally and you Driscoll, acted as a form of minder.  You both have a long-standing drug dependency, you both say that you had accumulated drug debts to your dealers, you were told that the debts would be written off if you undertook this drug run to Jersey and you both felt that you had little choice in the matter.  But the Court has repeatedly said that the fact that an importation is undertaken as a result of threats from drug dealers or to obtain release from a drug debt is no mitigation and we repeat that today. 

2.        Driscoll, you have three further charges against you relating to attempts to obtain drugs in prison for your own use.  In one case you were successful because a small amount of heroin was found in your possession but the other two were intercepted. 

3.        In respect of that we want to repeat what we said in the case of AG-v-Zaman [2013] (2) JLR N12; [2013] JRC 139 because it is important that prisoners realise that if they do try and import drugs into prison, they will receive an additional sentence.  What we said in Zaman is this:-

"We repeat what the court has said on previous occasions, namely that arranging the supply of drugs to the prison is particularly serious and will invariably attract a meaningful consecutive sentence for the prisoner involved."

The Court wishes to do what it can to assist the prison in maintaining discipline and a drug-free environment in the prison. 

4.        Now we must consider first of all the starting point.  We consider the case, of course, of Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 where for 100-250 grams the starting point varies between 10 and 13 years.  The Court has to take account not only of the amount but also the role and the activity actually undertaken by the offender.  We agree with both defence counsel in this case that, in view of your role, we can take a starting point at the bottom of the applicable bracket so we are going to take a starting point of 10 years rather than the 11 suggested by the Crown. 

5.        In terms of mitigation, Driscoll you have pleaded guilty; we have read the background report; we have read the letters from you, from your wife, your sister and your daughter; and we are pleased to see that you are taking advantage of your time in prison.  We hope this will stand you in good stead when you come out because, for both of you, unless you can overcome your drug dependency the prospects for the future are not encouraging. 

6.        Similarly, in relation to Morgan, we take account of your guilty plea, of what is in the report, and that you too are taking advantage of your time in prison.  Putting all this together we see no reason to distinguish between you in relation to the importation.  Although you, Morgan, pleaded guilty a little earlier which normally would gain additional credit, you were less cooperative when you were first seen so, balancing that out, we think there are no grounds for distinction and we think therefore the correct sentence for that offence is one of 6 years.  Turning to the offences in relation to the prison, we see no reason to differ from the Crown's conclusions of 15 months. 

7.        Driscoll, the sentence on Count 1 of the First Indictment is 6 years' imprisonment and on the Second Indictment, Count 1; 15 months', Count 2; 15 months', Count 3; 3 months, all of those concurrent but consecutive to the First Indictment, so that makes a total of 7 years and 3 months' imprisonment in your case. 

8.        In relation to Morgan, the sentence is 6 years' imprisonment on Count 1 of the First Indictment. 

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

Authorities

AG-v-Zaman [2013] (2) JLR N12

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.