Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A.

[2017]JRC062

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 April 2017

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew David Edward Jones

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 10^th March, 2017, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 14^th December, 2016, the defendant flew to Jersey from Liverpool.  He was found to be carrying 27.7 g of MDMA crystals of 82% purity, internally.  The estimated UK purchase price was £250-£500.  The quantity of crystals equated to 280 doses, and the Jersey street price was estimated at £2,800. 

He later said that he had been pressured into importing the drugs by a man from whom he had borrowed £2000 to set up his music business. 

Details of Mitigation:

Crown: Guilty plea (though not entitled to full credit due to the nature of the internal concealment). 

Defence: regret and remorse, background and depression, had been making efforts to turn life around.

Previous Convictions:

14 convictions for 35 offences including ten for drug offences between 1998 and 2015, including four offences of possession with intent to supply.

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

In assessing the defendant's role and involvement the Court would take into account his previous convictions in order to establish his role and involvement in drugs trafficking generally, as well as in this particular offence.

Conclusions granted. 

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Jones, you are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains just the one count of being knowingly concerned in the importation of ecstasy.  You brought the drugs into the Island concealed internally in your body.  The amount involved was 27.7 grams; 82% by weight MDMA; the estimated purchase price £250 to £500, with an estimated street value in Jersey in the sum of £2,800.  At interview you said very little to the police; it was mainly a no comment interview but you did say that you were too scared of those who had supplied the drugs to you to say anything. 

2.        You pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity in the Magistrates Court and in the Royal Court.  You will have been told that the Court approaches cases like yours on the basis of the case of Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 which is in the Court of Appeal, and that means that we have to look to find a starting point.  In your case, for the reasons of the quantum of drugs, the 27.7 grams falls in the band between 8 and 10 years' imprisonment.  The Crown has taken 8½ years imprisonment and your counsel suggests that we should reduce it to 8 years' imprisonment.  The purpose of the Rimmer guidelines is to emphasis the damage which is done to people in Jersey by having drugs in this Island and we recognise in Jersey that the sentencing levels are higher for these drugs than you would expect in the United Kingdom but it is an effort to protect the people of this Island. 

3.        The Court considers that, having regard to your involvement in drug trafficking and the amount involved, the Crown is right in its starting point and therefore we have taken 8½ years.  It was said by Advocate Bell that we should assess your involvement in this particular offence only and not have regard to the involvement in drug trafficking more generally.  We make it clear that we do not think that is the correct approach.  The correct approach, in our view, is that one looks at the involvement in drug trafficking generally and then also looks at the involvement in the particular offence with which the Court is concerned. 

4.        We have then gone on to consider all the mitigation which you have.  I have mentioned a guilty plea at the first opportunity and noted that your counsel has said it even pre-dated the analyst's report.  We have noted indeed everything that your counsel has very fluently said on your behalf, in particular the letters and references reflect very well on you and they do show that there are numbers of people who know you and who think highly of you and that is gratifying for where you are at the moment. 

5.        Having said all that, we think that the Crown is correct in its conclusions.  When I say we I would like to make it plain that that is by majority in this Court.  Three of the Jurats think that the Crown had it right at 6 years' imprisonment and two Jurats would have been inclined to give you a greater discount.  What I think all the Jurats would accept is that you can look at the sentence of 6 years' imprisonment in two ways.  You can look at it negatively as a tragedy and, of course, in some ways it is, or you can look at it positively as an opportunity to move your life forward to ensure that you get yourself free of drugs and to use the training opportunities, if you stay in our prison, that are available to you, because what is going to be required, and I am sure you realise this, is a long term commitment to be free of drugs and the problems that they have caused you in the past.  So, as I say, you can look at it positively or negatively and the Court hopes that you will try to see the positive parts in 6 years' imprisonment. 

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

Authorities

Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373. 

AG-v-Miah [2004] JLR Note 10. 

AG-v-Childs [2016] JRC 094A.