Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class B.

[2016]JRC083

Royal Court

(Samedi)

14 April 2016

The Attorney General

-v-

Kevin Robert McCormack

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 26^th February, 2016, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant and his girlfriend, both UK residents, were stopped by Customs Officers at Elizabeth Harbour after disembarking the ferry from Poole in a car belonging to the girlfriend.  A drug detector dog showed an interest in the boot of the vehicle.  On inspection it was discovered that a sheet of plywood covered with carpet had been inserted in the boot behind the rear seats; unlatching one of the rear seats revealed a void containing five large polythene packages containing tape wrapped blocks, subsequently confirmed as 28·5 Kilos of cannabis resin with a street value of approximately half a million pounds.  The defendant immediately accepted responsibility for the importation and exonerated the girlfriend. 

Details of Mitigation:

Cooperative during interview, made full admissions of his involvement, earliest possible admissions of guilt.  The defendant was pressured into attempting the importation to clear a debt relating to cocaine abuse, supplier would not accept cash settlement when defendant ceased use; supplier concealed unknown quantity of cannabis in the car describing it as 'a little bit of puff' with instruction to bring it over to the Island.  The defendant provided access codes for iPhone/iPad; data extraction of thousands of message exchanges over more than a year provided insight which supported references depicting the offending as totally out of character.  Steady relationship following breakdown of marriage, caring father to his young son, previously unblemished character.  Numerous family members and employer of 15 years travelled to attend Court to show genuine and continuing support. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Considering the quantity of the drug and role of the defendant the Crown took a starting point of 9 years' imprisonment and moved for a sentence of 4½ years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court expressed disappointment at seeing the defendant before them and accepted the explanation of circumstances advanced in mitigation; accepted he had tried to put his drug use and the debt behind him and this had been used against him.  Previous excellent good character, support from family and employer a testament to this.  Crown's starting point correct; no alternative other than a sentence of imprisonment, however the Court took the view the case was exceptional. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. C. Gollop for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        It is very disappointing to see you before the Court.  You are a man with no previous convictions at the age of 41, you have an excellent work record, having been with the same firm of electricians for some 16 years, and indeed you have been holding a responsible position in that firm.  Sadly, you have a cocaine habit which escalated after your father's death and resulted in your incurring a drug debt of some £3,000 to your supplier.  In exchange for the cancellation of that debt you agreed to bring some cannabis to Jersey in your car. 

2.        When the Court read the papers and given your financial position, we wondered why you had not repaid the debt but Advocate Gollop explained that you had tried to do so but that you had not, in effect, been allowed to and they had insisted on your performing this service.  Given how truthful you have been in every other way and how that has been verified through the various text messages on your phone and other information, we accept your version that that is what happened. 

3.        Fortunately you were stopped at the harbour and it was discovered that there was a total of some 28.5 kilos of cannabis which had been concealed in the car by those who arranged the importation.  You had given them your car and they had undertaken the hiding of the drug. 

4.        So the Court accepts that you were simply a courier who undertook this drug run to try and clear your debt.  We also accept that at the time you were in touch with Cocaine Anonymous and others to try and deal with your problem and that this was, in effect, your attempt to deal with the last outstanding aspect of that drug problem.  However, the fact that you undertook the run to pay off a drug debt is not a mitigating factor. 

Given the amount of cannabis and applying the guidelines in Campbell and Ors [1995] JLR 136 we agree with the Crown that, as accepted by your advocate, the starting point must be one of 9 years.  But then we turn to the mitigation which your advocate has put forward with considerable eloquence. 

(i)        Firstly, there is your extremely early guilty plea, you did it at the first opportunity and you had made immediate and frank admissions upon the drug being found;

(ii)       Secondly, you are a man of good character in the sense that you have no previous convictions, but;

(iii)      Thirdly, it goes far further than that.  Sometimes people come before the Court with no previous convictions but there is not much else to be said in their favour.  You on the other hand have many excellent character references from a wide variety of people, which shows that there is a very positive side to your character, including the fact that you help look after your child and we have read the reference from the mother of the child from whom you are now separated, which shows that.  It is also a testament to you that many members of your family and your employer have come over to support you here in court.  You can count yourself very fortunate.  You have, of course, let them all down. 

(iv)      We accept that you are remorseful; that appears from the probation report and from your letter and we note the apology to the Island tendered by your advocate;

(v)       We note that the probation report says that you are at low risk of reoffending and from all we have read, we accept that that is so. 

5.        So putting all this together we think this is a very sad case and we think that there is exceptional mitigation.  However, the fact remains that you imported this very substantial amount of cannabis and there can be no alternative to a substantial term of imprisonment for such an offence.  Nevertheless we think we can, in fact, reduce the conclusions a little to take account of this exceptionally powerful mitigation. 

6.        The sentence of the Court is one of 4 years' imprisonment.

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

Authorities

Campbell & ors v AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG v Brown [2008] JRC 208.

AG v Logan [2015] JRC 113.

AG v Dos Santos [2015] JRC 229.

AG v Gautier and Halais [2015] JRC 262A.