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- Palmer [2017] JRC 079 (25 May 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2017/2017_079.html
Cite as: [2017] JRC 079, [2017] JRC 79
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Crill, Blampied, Ramsden, Pitman, Christensen and Milner. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Michael Alan Palmer
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 3rd March 2017, following a guilty plea to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Having possession or control of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3). |
Age: 65.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The defendant attended at an address which was being searched by customs officers as part of a drug trafficking and money laundering investigation. When questioned about his attendance, the defendant stated that he was there "to see the chap in the flat". Officers searched the car which the defendant had arrived in and found a carrier bag containing £14,020 in cash. The defendant was arrested. During a search of the defendant's home address, customs officers seized, inter alia: (i) £40,000 in cash from a bedside unit; (ii) a black pouch containing two pipes which tested positive for cannabinoids; and (iii) a small lump of cannabis resin (4.09 grams) wrapped in cling film.
In interview the defendant eventually admitted that the cash was money he made from supplying cannabis. He stated that he had obtained 10 kilograms of cannabis resin and supplied it wholesale to four individuals. He stated that he expected to make a profit of about £20,000 from the sale of the cannabis.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea and admissions in interview. Effectively wrote his own indictment in respect of the supply charge.
Previous Convictions:
More than 30 offences between 1969 and 1997, including drug trafficking offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 6 years' imprisonment. 3½ years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 3½ years' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Confiscation hearing adjourned to 26th October 2017 at 10am.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court noted although the defendant volunteered the supply count against him he had done so in order to explain the possession of cash and was therefore already facing criminal sanction.
Conclusions granted.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. The defendant Palmer stands to be sentenced for one count of supplying ten kilograms of cannabis, one count of being in possession of criminal property, namely the sum of £47,520, and one count of possession of a small quantity, 4 grams, of cannabis. The defendant was driving a car in which a bag containing £14,020 in cash was found underneath the front passenger seat. A search of his home revealed bundled cash in his bedroom of £40,000, which makes a total of cash found of £54,020. However because of a third party claim against some of that money, he is being sentenced today on the basis of a total cash find of £47,520. The police also found a small quantity of cannabis.
2. The defendant initially gave an implausible explanation for his having this quantity of cash, but he eventually admitted that he had obtained 10 kilograms of cannabis in August 2016 for which he was entrusted to pay £50,000 for it later. That cannabis was then supplied by him to persons he refused to identify and the money found in his car and in his bedroom constituted what he had left of the proceeds. That quantity of cannabis would have had a street value of between £150,000 and £200,000.
3. The guidelines in Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 provide a 2-6 year starting point for 1-10 kilograms of cannabis and a 6-10 year starting point for 10-30 kilograms of cannabis. This quantity therefore comes on the cusp of the two and the prosecution sought a starting point of 6 years, accepted as correct by Advocate Bell for the defendant and we also accept that that is the correct starting point.
4. As for the money laundering offence, the prosecution referred us to the case of AG-v-Whelan, Grace and Robinson [2017] JRC 040B, but as Crown Advocate Maletroit said this charge is interlinked with the supply of cannabis which represented the sale proceeds of that supply and we agree with the prosecution that it should therefore attract a concurrent equivalent sentence.
5. The defendant has numerous convictions between 1969 and 1997, including drugs offences for which he served terms of imprisonment but none since then and therefore he has had no convictions for some twenty years; he is however assessed at a medium risk of further conviction.
6. From that starting point of 6 years the prosecution seek a final sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment.
7. The defendant has had a number of difficulties as set out in his letter to us which led him to embark upon what he described as this "foolhardy course" which has brought disgrace upon and distress to his family. He has the benefit of a guilty plea but the real issue is whether he has been given enough credit for effectively writing his own Indictment in relation to the supply of cannabis, as it was he who volunteered that information.
8. Advocate Bell referred us to the passage in Crown Advocate Whelan's work under the heading "Clean Breast Cooperation" quoting from that:
"Those who inform against themselves to the extent so to speak of drafting counts on their own indictment receive significant discount for doing so. Where the charges are based upon admissions of conduct which would not otherwise have been detected, the mitigation which arises is an addition to the discount attracted by a guilty plea. This independent head of mitigation should not be included within the guilty plea discount but should attract something further of significance on its own account."
However in the same work there is this passage from the Court of Appeal in Forrester-v-AG 2001/149:
"The characterisation of a defendant as the author of his own indictment, and, thus, entitled to an unusually generous discount for a plea of guilty, is only apposite when the defendant provides the police with evidence without which they could not charge the defendant with the offence in question or could not do so with any realistic prospect of success."
9. The fact of the matter is that although the defendant volunteered the supply of cannabis in that quantity, he did so to explain his possession of this large quantity of cash for which he had no plausible explanation. The defendant was therefore facing criminal sanction and although he should have credit for the explanation he gave for that cash, and which led to the supply charge, we think that is adequately reflected in the sentence proposed by the prosecution.
10. On Count 1 you are sentenced to 3½ years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, Count 3; 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3½ years' imprisonment.
11. We order the destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
AG-v-Whelan, Grace and Robinson [2017] JRC 040B.
Forrester-v-AG 2001/149.