Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Drugs - importation - possession with intent to supply - possession - Class A and B.

[2016]JRC145

Royal Court

(Samedi)

25 August 2016

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Nicolle, Crill, Blampied, Ramsden, Thomas and Pitman

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Thomas Calvert

Steven Paul Moore

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 14th July, 2016, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Michael Thomas Calvert

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:  37.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Calvert and Moore organised an importation of 224.33 grams of heroin from France.  The importation was effected by Moore who was transported on a RIB from Granville to Jersey, landing at Gorey Harbour.  Calvert met Moore on his arrival into the Island.  The two men were arrested after boarding a bus.  Moore was found to be in possession of 224.33 grams heroin, 50 oxycodone tablets, 24 subutex tablets and 1.16 grams of cannabis.  The plastic wrapping in which the heroin was contained was sent for forensic analysis and Calvert's fingerprint was recovered from one of the internal wraps. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea. 

Previous Convictions:

22 convictions for 64 offences, including 3 drugs possession offences.  No previous convictions for drug trafficking offences. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.  9 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:

Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.  8 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order made in the nominal sum of £1. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Steven Paul Moore

First Indictment

4 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 (Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4).

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Calvert above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea. 

Previous Convictions:

27 convictions for 112 offences, including 7 drugs possession offences.  No previous convictions for drug trafficking offences. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.  9 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 9 years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.  7 years and 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 7 years and 4 months' imprisonment. 

Confiscation Order made in the nominal sum of £1. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Mrs S. J. O'Donnell, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for Calvert.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Moore.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Calvert and Mr Moore, you are here to be sentenced on an Indictment, in your case Mr Calvert, containing the one count (Count 1) and in your case Mr Moore, containing the four counts, but the most important and the serious of those is the first Count - being knowingly concerned in the importation of a substantial quantity of heroin and the amount involved was 224.33 grams.  It has been accepted by you Mr Calvert, through your counsel, that you were an organiser and the role which you played therefore was central to this importation of drugs into the Island.  Although Mr Moore, you were a courier of the drugs, we think that the Crown rightly have distinguished between your role as a courier and what we sometimes have in this Court, are couriers who are mules, in the sense that you were trusted to go and collect the drugs and that your participation, your role, was greater than the mule courier who comes right at the bottom of the tree, as it were, in terms of the involvement in drug trafficking but we think that it is right to look at the difference in role to assess the starting point; we apply the decision of the Court of Appeal in Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 and accordingly we have looked carefully at the starting point which has been taken by the Crown. 

2.        We think, Mr Calvert, in your case that the starting point of 12 years is correct; we have regard to the quantity of drugs and to the fact that you were an organiser of the importation.  In your case Mr Moore, we think the starting point should be 11 years on Count 1.  We are not going to apply any uplift to that starting point on the Valler principle (Valler-v-AG [2002] JLR 383) for two reasons - first of all because the amount of other drugs covered by Counts 2-4 is not significant and, secondly, because the Crown accepts that those other drugs were imported for personal use.  Accordingly, we are taking the starting point of 11 years for you and 12 years for Mr Calvert. 

3.        We then look at what mitigation is available to you.  You both have truly appalling records although it is right that in, certainly your case Mr Calvert, you have no previous convictions for drugs trafficking.  At all events the way in which we approach your record is to say that it does not aggravate the offence you have committed but they certainly do not provide any mitigation for good character in either of your cases.  So we look at what other mitigation there is.  We accept the point that has been made by Advocate Landick that you are entitled to stay silent.  You are not being penalised for your silence on investigation by police or customs and we really think that the essential piece of mitigation is the question of your plea.  We are going to give you a full discount for your guilty plea and, having looked carefully at the other material that has been put before us, including the references, and including the material which is in the social enquiry report.  We think that the right amount of mitigation is wrapped up into a full one-third discount for the guilty plea.

4.        Accordingly Mr Calvert you are sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment on Count 1. 

5.        In your case Mr Moore, you are sentenced to 7 years and 4 months' imprisonment on Count 1.  We now come to Counts 2, 3 and 4.  The Crown has suggested in its conclusions that these should be concurrent sentences and we accept that.  On Count 2, we think 4½ years in the light of that fact that this was an importation for personal use, 4½ years is too high.  We reduce it to 2 years on Count 2, 2 months on Count 3, 1 month on Count 4.  They shall all be served concurrently so you are sentenced, Mr Moore, to a total of 7 years and 4 months' imprisonment. 

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

7.        We make Confiscation Orders in the nominal sum of £1 in relation to Mr Calvert and Mr Moore. 

8.        These are significant periods of imprisonment and they emphasise how this Court is determined to issue a warning to all that we are going to do what we can to prevent the importation of drugs into this Island.  You both know the score.  You know that you take your chances and, unfortunately for you, it has not gone well.  You have provided some interesting references for us - some people see a lot of good characteristics in you and that is unsurprising.  You need to concentrate on that while you are in custody and try and work on it to find some way of justifying the faith that they have in you. 

Authorities

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

Valler-v-AG [2002] JLR 383.

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

Welsh-v-AG [2002] JLR N 16.

AG v Miah [2004] JLR N 10.

Hamilton and Owens-v-AG [2010] JLR 313.

Vipond-v-AG [2004] JLR Note 24.

AG-v-Koradi [2014] JRC 073.