Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - production - supply - motoring - dangerous driving - failing to stop - uninsured.

[2016]JRC005

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 January 2016

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff and Jurats Fisher and Ronge

The Attorney General

-v-

Paris Limahl Botting

James Alexander Moore

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Paris Limahl Botting

First Indictment

2 counts of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 and 2).

Second Indictment

2 counts of:	Production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 1 and 7).
1 count of:	Being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 2).
2 counts of:	Offering to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 3 and 6).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 4).

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

In January 2014 Botting and Moore conspired to import drugs by postal importation.  The first importation was of 25g of Ethylphenidate which was ordered by Botting from a website and sent to Moore's address under an assumed name (Count 1).  Messages recovered from the defendants' mobile phones showed that, prior to importation, the two defendants were planning to adulterate the Ethylphenidate with sugar to make 50g for onward sale, which would generate £2,500 when sold. 

The second importation was of 5 MDMA tablets, which Moore organised to be sent by a friend concealed in a card to Botting's address (Count 2).  Once again messages recovered from the mobile phones showed that the tablets had arrived in the Island.  In interview Moore admitted taking two of the tablets with a friend and socially supplying the three other tablets. 

Neither the Ethylphenidate nor the MDMA were recovered. 

Second Indictment

Between May and October 2014 Botting was growing a cannabis plant in his bedsit (Count 1).  He discussed the cultivation and preparation for sale in Whatsapp conversations with his girlfriend, Isley Wylie.  Between September and October 2014 Botting sold 30g of herbal cannabis, which he had purchased from a friend, to an unnamed person (Count 2).  On 12^th November, 2014, again communicating using Whatsapp, Botting offered to supply Isley Wylie with 5 MDMA tablets (Count 3).  Between 20^th and 21^st November, 2014, Botting supplied Kallum Le Marchand with 3 MDMA tablets (Count 4).  On 20^th November, 2014, communicating using Whatsapp, Botting offered to supply Callum Sturgess with 40 MDMA tablets (Count 6).  Between June and July 2015, whilst on Magistrate's Court bail, Botting cultivated two cannabis plants at his girlfriend's mother's flat (Count 7).  Only the cannabis plants were recovered. 

Third Indictment

On 1^st February, 2015, Moore's Ford Ka, registration J44880 broke down in front of Falcon Apartments and Police attended to assist.  Moore indicated that the vehicle was newly purchased and officers told him that he was required to attend at Police Headquarters within 7 days to produce his insurance documents.  Moore did not attend and when he was arrested on 2^nd March, 2015, he produced insurance documents showing that his policy had commenced on 2^nd February, 2015, the day after he had been initially stopped (Count 1). 

On 2^nd March, 2015, a Police Officer saw Moore's Ford, and noted numerous vehicle defects, including a front bumper that was hanging off and a smashed rear passenger side window.  The Police Officer stopped the vehicle and Moore indicated that he would pull in on Mulcaster Street.  However, he drove into Mulcaster Street and did not stop, instead driving away along Pier Road (Count 2). 

The Ford was later located by the JEC substation opposite the Grand Vaux reservoir.  Moore was subsequently arrested and the Ford Ka, J44880, was impounded to the Driver and Vehicle Standards ("DVS") Department pending examination for defects.  A report dated 17^th March, 2015, concluded that the vehicle should not have been parked or circulating on the public highway.  The vehicle was subsequently scrapped (Count 3). 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.

Previous Convictions:

Six previous convictions, comprising 23 offences, including three drug offences involving cannabis. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to First Indictment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	24 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total: 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs in relation to Count 7 sought. 

Confiscation Hearing adjourned for a date to be fixed within 7 days Benefit of £7,600; confiscation for nominal amount of £1.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court felt able to give the defendants a final chance and imposed non-custodial sentences.

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 year starting point.  240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment, together with a 12 month Probation Order.
Count 2:	3 year starting point.  240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	90 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 2:	90 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	90 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total: 330 hours' Community Service Order and a 12 month Probation Order. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Confiscation Hearing adjourned for a date to be fixed within 7 days - benefit of £7,600; confiscation for nominal amount of £1.

James Alexander Moore

First Indictment

2 counts of:

Conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 and 2).

Third 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 1).
1 count of:	Failing to stop when required by a police officer, contrary to Article 51(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Dangerous driving, contrary to Article 22(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 3).

Age:  20 but 19 at time of offences.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Botting above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; youth; remorse.

Previous Convictions:

One previous conviction for possession of a Class B drug and obstructing a Police Officer. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' youth detention
Count 2:	18 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Third Indictment

Count 1:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent and disqualification from driving for a period of 12 months and test to be retaken after that period.
Count 2:	No separate penalty.
Count 3:	1 month's youth detention concurrent and disqualification from driving for a period of 12 months and test to be retaken after that period.

Total: 18 months' youth detention and disqualification from driving for a period of 12 months and test to be retaken after that period.  

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Confiscation Hearing to be adjourned for a date to be fixed within 7 days - benefit of £2,600 therefore confiscation order sought in the sum of £2,600.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court felt able to give the defendants a final chance and imposed non-custodial sentences.

First Indictment

Count 1:	180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' youth detention, together with a 12 month Probation Order.
Count 2:	240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Third Indictment

Count 1:	50 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 1 month's imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.
Count 2:	£200 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default.
Count 3:	50 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 1 month's youth detention, concurrent.

Total: 290 hours' Community Service Order and £200 fine and a 12 month Probation Order. 

No disqualification from driving ordered.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Confiscation Hearing adjourned for a date to be fixed within 7 days - benefit of £2,600; confiscation in the sum of £2,600.

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

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for Botting.

Advocate J. M. Grace for Moore.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        There are three Indictments before us in respect of these two defendants; the joint Indictment involving Mr Botting and Mr Moore were the two offences of conspiracy to evade the prohibition on the importation of a Class B drug, ethylphenidate, and the second count, conspiracy to evade the prohibition on the importation of a Class A drug, ecstasy.  Drugs offences are extremely serious and where there is an offence of importation or conspiracy to import drugs this Court is always looking at the probability of a custodial sentence. 

2.        Mr Botting, in your case you have also been charged on the Second Indictment with a number of other drugs offences, two charges of production of cannabis and other charges of either supplying or being concerned in supplying or offering to supply ecstasy or cannabis, as the case may be.  It follows from just those few remarks Mr Botting that you will realise that you have been thoroughly engaged in the drugs world and that is something which the Court is bound to view with the greatest concern.  It does so particularly given the fact that you have previous convictions involving drugs, three of them. 

3.        The Third Indictment we are dealing with involves motoring offences in respect of you Mr Moore. 

4.        We are going to avoid a custodial sentence but I want you both to know how close you have come to it. 

5.        Mr Botting, we are fairly circumspect - we are not sure - about accepting the explanations you have given.  We are giving you an absolutely last chance.  You can count your life on it that you have never been as close to receiving a very substantial custodial sentence.  One of the reasons that we are going to avoid in this case is that you have actually served 4 months or so in prison so far and we think that it gives us the opportunity of taking something of a chance with you and imposing a non-custodial sentence in respect of these offences.

6.        Accordingly you are going to be given an amount of community service and you are going to be placed on probation for 12 months and I must warn you that if you do not perform the community service or that if you breach your probation order in any way at all, you are liable to be brought back to Court and sentenced again for these offences, in which case it is very likely the Court will impose a custodial sentence then. 

7.        Mr Moore, in your case you too are going to be placed on probation for 12 months and you are going to have an amount of community service to serve.  We, of course, have taken into account in your case the fact that you are under 21 and therefore the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies to you but again, you can be absolutely sure that we have looked very carefully indeed at whether these offences are not so serious that you should have received a custodial sentence so you can count yourself fortunate today that you are not being sent to youth detention.  You are, Mr Moore, a young man.  These chances do not come along very often.  Mr Botting, youth does not count in your favour, you are quite old enough to know better but these chances do not come along very often.  The Court is putting quite a lot of trust in you and we think you should take that into account because if you breach it there are going to be some really quite nasty consequences.

8.        Regarding the particular amounts of community service in relation to Count 1 (conspiracy to import ethylphenidate, which is a class B drug) it is a serious offence and we think that the quantities which are involved here were taking a notional starting point of 3 years' imprisonment, taking into account the guilty plea and the other mitigation we think we would have ended up if it had been a custodial sentence at 18 months in respect of you, Mr Botting, and accordingly you are sentenced to 240 hours' community service and you would have received 18 months imprisonment on that count.  Mr Moore, taking into account the same mitigation and the same starting point but having regard to your youth, we would have imposed, and also having regard to the fact that you had less involvement in the offence, we would have imposed 12 months' youth detention, you are therefore sentenced tto 180 hours' community service on Count 1 of that joint indictment. 

9.        In relation to Count 2 we think that the main offender here was Mr Moore and therefore we have approached it in this way.  Taking a starting point of 3 years again, Mr Moore you would have been sentenced to 18 months' youth detention but accordingly you are sentenced to 240 hours' community service which is to run concurrently; Mr Botting you do not have the same mitigation of youth and so we would have sentenced you to 18 months' imprisonment, on this you, again will be sentenced 240 hours' community service, again to run concurrently. 

10.      So in relation to that First Indictment you are both sentenced to 240 hours' community service on each count to run concurrently and a 12 month probation order.

11.      Mr Botting, in relation to the Second Indictment these offences are again serious drugs offences.  You are sentenced on Count 1 of the Second Indictment to 90 hours' community service, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment.  On Count 2; 90 hours' community service, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, Count 3; 180 hours' community service, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, Count 4; 240 hours' community service, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment, Count 6; 240 hours' community service, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment.  Now Count 7, the growing of cannabis when you were already under charge for other offences, you will have a consecutive sentence of 90 hours' community service, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment. All those, apart from Count 7, are served concurrently with each other and with 240 hours' so Mr Botting, as far as you are concerned, the total is 240 hours' community service plus 90 hours, consecutive on Count 7 of the Second indictment making a total of 330 hours' community service.

12.      Mr Moore in relation to the Third Indictment and the driving offences, on Count 1 we sentence you on the basis that there were one or two days driving without insurance.  You are sentenced to 50 hours' community service, equivalent to 1 month's youth detention and it is to be performed consecutively to the First Indictment.  On Count 2 you are fined £200 or 1 month's youth detention in default and three months in which to pay.  On Count 3 you are sentenced to 50 hours' community service, equivalent to 1 month's youth detention, concurrently with Count 1 so in your case the total is 240 hours from the First Indictment and 5o hours consecutive from the Third Indictment, making a total of 290 hours' community service.  We do not disqualify you in relation to the driving offences.

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

14.      Finally I would make the comment in relation to the fine imposed on Count 2 that under Article 6 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 the court is entitled to postpone the determination of any benefit or confiscation in relation to the relevant offences and under Article 6(7) where the Court exercises its power it may nevertheless proceed to sentence or otherwise deal with the defendant in respect of the offences concerned.  That seems to me to be absolutely plain that we have jurisdiction to impose a fine in this case. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

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

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Buckley [2008] JLR Note 34.

AG-v-Huish [2014] JRC 194.

AG-v-Sutton [2015] JRC 147.

AG-v-Thompson [2015] JRC165.

AG v Bowler [2009] JRC 206.

AG-v-Egan [2009] JRC 162.

AG-v-O'Shea [2010] JRC 040.