Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - supply - possession - Class A and B.

[2016]JRC132A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

4 August 2016

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Nicolle, Liston, Ramsden, Pitman and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Sean Michael Lambotte

Joanne Olaosebikan

Amy Leonie Le Masurier

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 10th June, 2016, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Sean Michael Lambotte

1 count 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 (Count 1).

Age:  40.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between 14^th September and 8^th October 2015 Lambotte, Olaosebikan and unnamed others were involved in a conspiracy to import heroin into Jersey.  Heroin was brought into the Island on two occasions by Olaosebikan, a former heroin user, who passed it Lambotte.  On each occasion she brought in a table-tennis sized package of the drug, each weighing around 15 grams. 

Both Lambotte and Olaosebikan were independently in contact throughout with UK based conspirators.  On both occasions Olaosebikan collected some of the proceeds of the sale of heroin from Lambotte and facilitated the transfer of that money back to the mainland.  A fourth defendant, Annie Cleaver also took some of the proceeds of the sale of heroin back to Liverpool. 

Le Masurier, who was not aware of the first importation until after it had happened, thereafter became concerned in the activity of the others by paying for Olaosebikan's guest house accommodation, and allowing Olaosebikan to supply the heroin the Lambotte in her flat.  Le Masurier was not involved on the second occasion. 

On 8^th October, 2015, police officers arrested Lambotte in a lane close to his home.  He was carrying two jars, which between them contained £4,700.00 in cash and approximately 15 grams of heroin (the latter from Olaosebikan's second importation). 

Shortly afterwards Olaosebikan and Le Masurier were arrested at Lambotte's flat.  Inside the flat police officers seized inter alia £2600.00 cash and a plastic wrap (on which Le Masurier's DNA was subsequently found) containing 1.12 grams of heroin.  Olaosebikan's handbag was found to contain £1290.00 cash together with a personal amount of cannabis resin. 

Whilst officers were continuing their search of Lambotte's flat later that evening, Cleaver arrived expecting to collect the proceedings of drug trafficking.  She too was arrested.  

Although Lambotte entered an early guilty plea, Olaosebikan and Le Masurier (in relation to the substantive charges) did not, and a trial had to be ordered.  In the meantime Cleaver was sentenced separately.  On the eve of their trial both Olaosebikan and Le Masurier entered guilty pleas acceptable to the Crown. 

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea.

Previous Convictions:

Seven previous convictions comprising eighteen offences.  Fifteen drugs offences, four of which related to drug trafficking.  Sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment in 2011 for possession of drugs with intent to supply. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 9½ years.  6 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £7,489.26.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court granted the conclusions of the Crown in relation to Lambotte.  However the Court felt able to reduce the conclusions in relation to Olaosebikan by 6 months, and to reduce those in relation to Le Masurier by 12 months. 

Conclusions granted.

Joanne Olaosebikan

1 count 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 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 10).

Age:  38.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Lambotte above.

Details of Mitigation:

Late guilty plea; no previous drug related convictions; difficult background; remorse. 

Previous Convictions:

Seven previous convictions comprising ten offences.  None drug-related.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 8 years.  5 years' imprisonment.
Count 10:	2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £1,290.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

See Lambotte above.

Count 1:	4½ years' imprisonment.
Count 10:	2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4½ years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order made in the sum of £1,290.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

Amy Le Masurier

First Indictment

1 count of:

Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article (5)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 7).

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).

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Lambotte above. 

Details of Mitigation:

Late guilty plea; significant personal difficulties; less serious involvement; remorse. 

Previous Convictions:

Nine previous convictions comprising fifty-five offences.  Many offences of dishonesty and four drug related offences, including two minor importations. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 7:

Starting point 5 years.  3 years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3 years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

See Lambotte above. 

First Indictment

Count 7:

2 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Second Indictment

Count 1:

12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

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

Advocate A. M. Harrison for Lambotte.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Le Masurier.

Advocate A. T. H. English for Olaosebikan.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Lambotte and Olaosebikan, you were involved in two importations of heroin in September and October of last year.  Each importation was of approximately 14 grams, making a total of at least 28 grams.  The Crown has said that we should sentence on the basis of the pleas which you have each put forward and that is what we will do. 

2.        Lambotte, you agreed to the suggestion of an old associate in the UK to sell heroin, which he would supply to you, in Jersey.  After payment of the amounts due to your UK supplier you were free to keep the surplus sale proceeds.  You sold the first importation but were arrested before you had sold much of the second importation. 

3.        Olaosebikan, you were the courier.  You imported the heroin on each occasion concealed internally.  You were also to collect money from Lambotte and return it to the UK supplier.  On the first occasion you took back some £2,000 and on the second occasion you thought you were going to take back £2,500 but you were caught before the second batch was sold. 

4.        Le Masurier, you are charged with being concerned in the supply of heroin.  Again we are asked to sentence on the basis of the plea which you have put forward, your version of events, and we do that.  On that basis your involvement was two-fold; you facilitated the transaction by allowing your flat to be used for the hand-over of heroin by Olaosebikan to Lambotte after you had learned of the importation, which you did not know of beforehand.  You also, after you had learned of the importation, helped to arrange accommodation for Olaosebikan at a guesthouse. 

5.        Now we are going to start by considering the starting points.  The amounts involved, as we have said, were some 28 grams.  This falls within the bracket 20-50 grams which has a starting point of 8-10 years' as established by the case of Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.  The Court also, of course, has to have regard to the nature and the level of your involvement in the drug trafficking enterprise. 

6.        Lambotte, we consider your involvement was the greatest.  You were the person receiving the drugs and you were going to sell them in Jersey.  The Crown has suggested a starting point of 9 years, being in the middle of the bracket.  However, you have a number of previous convictions for drug offences, including several for possession with intent to supply.  Previous convictions for drug trafficking offences can lead to an increase in the starting point as set out in the case of Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.  We think that having regard to your previous record and to the nature and scale of your involvement in this case, a starting point of 9½ years is correct. 

7.        Olaosebikan, in your case the Crown has suggested a starting point of 8 years; that is the bottom of the applicable bracket. That would be appropriate if you were just a courier importing the drugs, but your involvement was greater; you were trusted by the UK supplier to receive substantial sums of money and take them back to Liverpool.  We think that to reflect that level of involvement the starting point should be 8½ years. 

8.        Le Masurier, the Rimmer guidelines do not necessarily apply to your offence as laid down in the cases of McDonough-v-AG 1994/193 and AG-v-Antunes [2003] JLR 144.  We agree that the nature of your involvement means that they should not be applied in this case.  The Crown has suggested a starting point of 5 years; we think that is too high for your involvement.  However, any degree of involvement in the supply of Class A drugs is very serious and we think the correct starting point for you is one of 4 years. 

9.        We should add that we are aware that a fourth co-accused, Annie Cleaver, has already been sentenced for some money-laundering offences, namely taking the proceeds back to England and she was given a non-custodial sentence which was equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment.  However, the Court in that case made it clear that it was an individualised sentence and was not a precedent.  It said that the Court would be likely to look at sentences higher than 12 months simply for the money-laundering activities she had undertaken. 

10.      Now turning to you Lambotte and your mitigation which comes off the starting point.  We give you full credit for the guilty pleas, so that is a one-third discount; we have read your letter of remorse, we also have read the background report which sets out the progress you have made in prison and the detoxification.  You have a long-standing drug habit and we hope very much that you are on the way to conquering it.  Given the level of mitigation, we think that it is slightly greater than the Crown allowed but, of course, we have a higher starting point.  Overall we think the sentence that the Crown moved for is correct. 

11.      The sentence in your case on Count 1 is one of 6 years' imprisonment. 

12.      Olaosebikan, you have pleaded guilty.  We have heard from your advocate and indeed that for Le Masurier that, although the plea of guilty was entered late, the full discount should be given because of inconsistencies in the presentation by the Crown, changes in Crown Advocate, and difficulties in obtaining documents from the Crown.  We cannot say whether that is correct or not, but we think that the fair thing in the particular circumstances is to give you both the full one-third discount; so we will do that.  The second piece of mitigation is your very difficult personal circumstances as appears from the background report.  We note your lack of previous drug offences and indeed no offences since 2008.  So it is very sad now after that gap to see you before the court.  We have read your letter of remorse and we have also read the letters of support that have been written.  We have also read the background report and we have taken account of all the mitigation which is available on the papers.  All in all, we think we can allow a slight discount from the conclusions of the Crown notwithstanding the fact that we are taking a higher starting point. 

13.      Olaosebikan, In your case the sentence on Count 1 is 4½ years' imprisonment, on Count 10; 2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 4½ years' imprisonment. 

14.      Now Le Masurier, you pleaded guilty, and again for the reason I have just explained, we are going to give you a full one-third discount.  We have read carefully the background report, the psychiatric report and the psychological report.  We are impressed with the efforts you have made in prison to try and overcome your drug dependency.  You have made enormous progress and not only have you detoxed from the heroin but also you have made great progress in detoxing from the valium and you are nearly there.  As a result you have obtained a lot of support from professionals such as Evans House, and from your family and we are very pleased to see that Evans House is willing to offer you accommodation whenever you are released.  We have considered very carefully whether we can proceed by way of a Probation Order and, as you will have seen, we have been retired for some time and much of the discussion involved that.  However, we have come to the conclusion that we cannot.  Those who get involved, even on the periphery with the supply of Class A drugs must realise that a prison sentence will almost inevitably follow.  However, we think that we can reduce the conclusions. 

15.      On Count 7 the sentence is 2 years' imprisonment and on Count 1; 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.  That makes a total of 2 years' imprisonment in all. 

16.      Now we do urge you to try and continue with the good progress you have made for the further 6 or 7 months that you are going to spend in prison, so that when you come out you can take advantage of the offers of help which have been made and which I am sure will still be forthcoming, so that you really can try and turn your life around on release.  We hope that as a result we will not see you back before the courts. 

17.      So that is the sentence of the Court. 

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

Authorities

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

McDonough-v-AG [1994] JLR Note 7.

AG-v-Antunes [2003] JLR 144.