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- Rae and Spinola [2017] JRC 080 (25 May 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2017/2017_080.html
Cite as: [2017] JRC 080, [2017] JRC 80
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Crill, Blampied, Ramsden, Pitman, Christensen and Milner. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Darryn Rae
Antonio Miguel Spinola
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 3rd March, 2017, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Darryn Rae
|
3 counts of: |
Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement that facilitates, by any means, the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts, 2 and 3). |
Age: 52.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Rae made three trips to Jersey from Southampton. He was kept under surveillance during his time in the Island. During his first trip, Rae was observed meeting with Spinola and placing a bundle of cash into a bag. Rae then deposited £9,000 in cash into his bank accounts before leaving the Island. During his second trip, Rae was observed retrieving something from Spinola's car. Rae then deposited £5,200 in cash into his bank accounts before leaving the Island. During his third trip, Rae was observed meeting with Spinola in Spinola's car. Both parties were arrested and £8,000 in cash was seized from the passenger foot well of the car.
Following the arrests, customs officers searched Spinola's flat and seized inter alia; (i) a shoebox containing 22 bars (2145.32 grams) of cannabis resin and a quantity of re-sealable plastic bags; (ii) a plastic container containing 19 ½ MDMA tablets, 2.96 grams of MDMA powder and 1.28 grams of cannabis resin; (iii) a cardboard box containing 42.08 grams of cannabis resin; (iv) a cash counting machine; (v) a suitcase containing £30,000 in cash; and (vi) a safe containing £35,205 in cash.
Details of Mitigation:
Early guilty pleas.
Previous Convictions:
79 offences between 1977 and 2009 including drug trafficking.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
4 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 4 years' imprisonment.
Confiscation order sought in the sum of £8,000 but confiscation hearing to be adjourned until 30th October 2017 at 10am.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
Confiscation hearing adjourned until 26th October, 2017 at 10am.
Antonio Miguel Spinola
|
3 counts of: |
Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement that facilitates, by any means, the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1, 2 and 3). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 4). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 5). |
|
1 count of: |
Having possession or control of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 6). |
Age: 35.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Rae above.
Details of Mitigation:
Admissions in interview; cooperation with the investigation and early guilty pleas.
Previous Convictions:
5 offences including possession of controlled drugs.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
4 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
1½ years' imprisonment, consecutive. |
|
Count 5: |
1½ years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 6: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 5½ years' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Confiscation order sought in the sum of £219,860.44 but confiscation hearing to be adjourned until 30th October 2017 at 10am.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
1½ years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
1½ years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 6: |
3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Confiscation hearing adjourned until 26th October, 2017 at 10am.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. M. Grace for Rae.
Advocate D. S. Steenson for Spinola.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. The defendants Spinola and Rae stand to be sentenced for three counts of entering into money laundering arrangements and the defendant Spinola with one count of being in possession of criminal property, namely £65,205 in cash. He also stands to be sentenced for one count of possession of 2.2 kilograms of cannabis with intent to supply and one count of possession of 19½ MDMA tablets and 2.96 grams of MDMA powder.
2. The defendants were involved in a criminal enterprise operating at a significant scale in which Spinola acted as the banker in Jersey collecting the proceeds of the sale of drugs in Jersey and handing it over to Rae who would come over to Jersey to bank it in cash in two bank accounts he had here whereby the proceeds were paid upstream to associates in England. Three trips to Jersey by Rae were monitored by the police in which he collected a total of £22,000 handed over by Spinola, including the £8,000 found in Spinola's car when the two were stopped and arrested. The quantities of cash were such that Spinola had acquired a safe and a cash counting machine.
3. A search of Spinola's flat revealed the cannabis resin and MDMA and £65,205 in cash in two locations. Spinola told the police that this cash was due to Rae, something Rae denies, but we regard it as part of the criminal enterprise, for which Spinola will receive a concurrent sentence. Spinola told the police that the drugs found in his flat was his reward over the part he played in the enterprise. He and his girlfriend were cannabis users and he would sometimes give cannabis to friends; whether he charged his friends depended on how, using his words, "flush they were".
4. The maximum sentence for the money laundering offences is 14 years and there are no guidelines. However, the principles to be applied were set out by the Superior Number in the case of AG-v-Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 as follows:
(i) There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the sentence for the laundering offence and the predicate offence. Where, however, the predicate offence can be identified, some regard will be had to the appropriate sentence for that offence when considering the appropriate sentence for the laundering offence.
(ii) The criminality in laundering is the assistance, support and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct.
(iii) Regard should be had to the extent of the launderer's knowledge of the predicate offence.
(iv) The amount of money laundered is a relevant factor.
(v) No distinction is to be drawn as a matter of law between the laundering of one's own proceeds of crime and the proceeds of crime committed by third parties; and
(vi) The duration, sophistication and scale of money laundering are also relevant considerations.
5. Although, as the prosecution say, Rae appears to be higher up the chain, the role played by Spinola as banker was significant and we agree with the prosecution that they are equally culpable, a view taken by the Court in the similar case of AG-v-Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A. So applying the principles in Goodwin and by reference to the recent cases of Fish and Hinds, AG-v-Turney [2016] JRC 175 and AG-v-Whelan Grace and Robinson [2017] JRC 040B and making the same allowance for mitigation for both defendants, the prosecution have arrived at a conclusion of 4 years for the money laundering offences. Although the prosecution have not volunteered a starting point, this would indicate a starting point of between 6 and 7 years depending on how much credit is given for the guilty pleas and other mitigation.
6. Subject to mitigation Advocate Steenson accepted that 4 years was the appropriate level of sentence to reflect the culpability of the defendants, and not the 2 years suggested buy Advocate Grace, and we agree.
7. We will come to the issue of mitigation in a moment, but the Crown also took the view that the drugs found at Spinola's flat were unrelated to the enterprise with Rae and should be dealt with consecutively. Applying the guidelines in Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 to the cannabis this would lead to a consecutive sentence of 1½ years for the cannabis and therefore a total sentence of 5½ years for Spinola as against 4 years for Rae. We agree with Advocate Steenson that Spinola's drug offences are not separate from the enterprise. It is clear from his interview with the police that the drugs found were his reward for the part he played and therefore we agree that it formed part of the enterprise and should result in a concurrent sentence.
8. Turning to mitigation, both defendants have the benefit of guilty pleas and we have taken into account everything put forward by their respective counsel but we conclude that there is more mitigation available to Spinola. Firstly, Spinola's record is very much better than Rae's; he has three convictions in the Magistrate's Court for five offences, one for possession of a small quantity of drugs, all before 2000 and he has never been in prison. Rae has twenty-four convictions for seventy-nine offences in the UK dating from 1977 to 2009 including offences of dishonesty, violence and drug-trafficking for which he has received multiple custodial sentences. Secondly, whilst Rae has had a troubled life as explained to us in his letter, which we have considered carefully, we were impressed by what Spinola has said to us in his letter and through his counsel and by the extent of his remorse and shame. Accordingly we are going to give Spinola a greater reduction for mitigation.
9. But subject to that, the roles played by Rae and Spinola, as the prosecution has said, would have provided assistance, support and encouragement to criminal activities; just as there would not be thieves without receivers, there would not be drug-traffickers without money launderers. In our view the sentences must not only reflect the seriousness of the defendants conduct but also have a deterrent element for those who may consider participating in similar activities.
10. Turning to the sentences, Mr Rae on Count 1 you are sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 3; 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 4 years' imprisonment.
11. Mr Spinola, on Count 1 you are sentenced to 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 3; 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 4; 1½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 5; 1½ years' imprisonment, concurrent and Count 6; 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
12. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
AG-v-Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A.
AG-v-Whelan Grace and Robinson [2017] JRC 040B.