Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A (07 October 2016)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2016/2016_181A.html
Cite as: [2016] JRC 181A
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen and Sparrow |
The Attorney General
-v-
Vaughan William Fish
Roland Karl Brinne Hinds
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Vaughan William Fish
|
1 count of: |
Entering into an arrangement to acquire, use, possess or control criminal property on behalf of another, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1). |
Age: 64.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On Saturday 18th June, 2016, Hinds was observed by a customs officer driving a vehicle into the car park opposite the Midbay Café in St Brelade's Bay. There were no passengers.
Hinds alighted from the vehicle and went towards the public toilets a short distance away, returning minutes later. He then retrieved a small package from the boot of the vehicle before getting back into the front seat.
Soon after, Fish walked towards the vehicle and was seen leaning down on the open window. Hinds handed the package to Fish. Fish then walked away from the vehicle, placing the package inside his jacket. Fish was approached by the customs officer who identified himself and informed him that he was under arrest for suspected money laundering. Fish removed the package from under his jacket and tossed it away over a nearby garden fence behind the officer's back.
In the meantime other customs officers arrived at the scene and Hinds was also arrested on suspicion of money laundering offences. The package was retrieved and when opened by customs officers the next morning was found to contain £3,880 in cash.
In interview, both Fish and Hinds denied knowing each other.
Fish, an Englishman who had arrived in Jersey on the Condor ferry on 17th June, claimed that he thought the cash was the proceeds of sale of a van and that he threw it over the wall because he thought he was being robbed.
Hinds was uncooperative in interview in respect of the money laundering charge and denied giving anything to Fish.
Four grams of cannabis were found in the vehicle - Hinds admitted that this belonged to him and was for his personal use.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea at indictment, support of his partner, current state of health.
Previous Convictions:
8 previous convictions relating to 22 offences in England. Fish's most recent conviction was in 2001 when he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment for importing cannabis.
18 offences relate to fraud and theft and one to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
12 months' imprisonment. |
Forfeiture Order sought in the sum of £3,880 to be paid into the Criminal Organisation Compensation Fund.
Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
12 months' imprisonment. |
Confiscation Order made in the nominal sum of £1.
Forfeiture Order made in the sum of £3,880.
Roland Karl Brinne Hinds
|
1 count of: |
Entering into an arrangement to acquire, use, possess or control criminal property on behalf of another, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (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 2). |
Age: 56.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Fish above.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea at indictment, full-time employment, letters to the Court and the support of his family.
Previous Convictions:
36 previous convictions relating to 75 offences in Jersey.
Most recently, Hinds was convicted of grave and criminal assault in 2011 and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
3 offences relate to possession of controlled drugs. Other offences include offences against the person, against property, fraud, theft and public order offences. Many are alcohol related. 15 offences relate to police, court and the prison including assaults on police and he has served a number of terms of imprisonment in Jersey.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
12 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 12 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
12 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 12 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
C. R. Baglin, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. J. Haines for Fish.
Advocate J. N. Heywood for Hinds.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. Mr Fish and Mr Hinds, you are here to be sentenced on one count of jointly arranging to acquire, possess, or control £3,880 in cash which you suspected to be the proceeds of criminal activity, and that is the substantial count on the Indictment. Mr Hinds is additionally to be sentenced for one count of possession of cannabis. The facts were that at 9:30 on one evening in June, Mr Hinds was observed by customs officers to be driving a silver Ford Fiesta car, and this was captured on the customs video camera. He retrieved a small package from the boot of his vehicle and got back in the front seat. Mr Fish walked towards the vehicle, lent into the open window and the defendants conversed briefly before Mr Hinds handed the package to Mr Fish who walked away, placing the package inside his jacket. When arrested under suspicion of money laundering Mr Fish threw the package away over a nearby garden fence. It was found to contain £3,880 in cash. The denominations were £10, £20 and £50.
2. Explanations were given to the customs officers by Mr Fish which the Court finds to be not credible. In particular we noted that the booking on Condor by which Mr Fish came over to the Island was made in a false name. The Crown did not accept the explanation that Mr Fish has presented saying that he was not good on the internet and Condor had misspelt his name, and the Court sees no reason to accept it either.
3. The Crown has accepted that the two defendants had no knowledge of the antecedent offence, that is the offences committed which led to the criminal proceeds and then to the money laundering. The Court thinks that this does not matter. Just as the courier takes the risk of Class A drugs when he brings drugs into the Island not knowing exactly what the drugs are, and the Court sentences on the basis of whatever those drugs might be, the money launderer also takes the risk of the nature of the underlying offence being drug trafficking. In the present circumstances the Court considers that it is plain that the most likely explanation of the underlying criminal offence was drug trafficking. We do not accept Advocate Haines' submission that it would be pure speculation to say that this represented the proceeds of drug trafficking for a number of reasons; one of them is the division of cash into £10, £20 and £50 notes, the £50 notes in particular are a well-known indicator of street deals in drugs and that was referred to in the Privy Council decision in AG-v-O'Brien and Others [2003] JRC 137A some years ago.
4. Secondly the involvement of customs officers makes it plain to us that we can at least suspect that there is some evidence of a drug trafficking operation being investigated by customs. The guilty knowledge on the part of Mr Fish, although he has provided an explanation to customs, is, in our view, unquestioned that he had that guilty knowledge. The new mobile pay-as-you-go phone with only two numbers in it is indicative of that, and, frankly, the Court does not accept the explanations which have been put forward. We do not see any distinction between the conduct of Mr Hinds and Mr Fish. Mr Hinds, perhaps closer to the actual commission of crime, Mr Fish perhaps closer to the organiser of the criminal activity, because he was to take the money back out of the Island. We treat them the same for these purposes.
5. Money laundering of the proceeds of crime, in theory, carries a potential sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment. That reflects the seriousness with which the legislature in this Island treats this offence, and where the underlying offence was drug trafficking, as we think this was likely to have been, we take the view that it calls for an immediate custodial sentence except in the case of very small amounts of money or unusual personal mitigation. We do not find any such personal mitigation to be very unusual here. It is regrettable in the case of Mr Hinds that in the last three or four years he appears to have been turning his life around, regrettable in the sense that he has been on bail, because it is always more challenging for the Court to consider imposing a custodial sentence when somebody has been on bail, but we note from the court record that a warning was given to Mr Hinds when granted bail after his guilty plea, that it carried no implication that a custodial sentence would not be imposed.
6. We have taken the view therefore that the right course is a custodial sentence and we have then gone on to consider how long that should be. As a form of cross-check against the conclusions of the Crown we have looked at what sentence might have been imposed had there been a not guilty plea and we think that the offence would have carried perhaps 18 months to 2 years' imprisonment which suggests that the Crown is in the right territory in its conclusions. We have had regard to everything which has been said by Counsel on behalf of the two defendants, but we nonetheless think the conclusions of the Crown are correct.
7. In those circumstances we impose sentences as follows; on Mr Fish; 12 months' imprisonment. On Mr Hinds on Count 1; 12 months' imprisonment, and on Count 2; 2 weeks' imprisonment rather than a month, concurrent, for the small amount of possession of cannabis.
8. The Court also orders the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
9. We order the forfeiture of the sum of £3,880 and no objections have been taken by either Counsel to that.
10. Now the last thing that is outstanding is the question of benefit, and we take the view that the Crown has established under the balance of probabilities, that the payment for travel, which the defendant Mr Fish has received, was in connection with the offence which he is to be sentenced for and in those circumstances we think it is right to make the finding that he has benefited to the tune of £335 and we make a nominal Confiscation Order in the sum of £1 as requested.
11. So you are sentenced accordingly to a total of 12 months' imprisonment, Mr Fish, a total of 12 months' imprisonment, Mr Hinds.
Authorities
AG-v-O'Brien and Others [2003] JRC 137A.
Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey - Third Edition, 2012.