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 Dixey and Pereira [2017] JRC 081 (26 May 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2017/2017_081.html
Cite as: [2017] JRC 081, [2017] JRC 81
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - contravention of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Nicolle and Grime |
The Attorney General
-v-
Robert Thomas Dixey
Steven James Pereira
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:
Robert Thomas Dixey
|
1 count 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 (Count 1). |
Age: 35.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On Saturday 5th March, 2016, at approximately 1pm customs officers observed Dixey standing near the entrance to Green Street Car Park. Approximately 20 minutes later a VW Golf driven by Pereira approached and pulled into a slip road next to the car park and stopped under an archway. Dixey approached the car and leant inside the front passenger window. Dixey then emerged from the car and walked away carrying a large brown paper bag with a "Tib Street" logo on it. Dixey walked across the road to the car park of The Club Hotel and Spa and Pereira drove off in the direction of La Colomberie.
Dixey was observed placing the brown "Tib Street" bag in the boot of a silver VW Passat. At approximately 6:10pm Customs Officers stopped Dixey as he was about to board a Condor Ferry bound for Portsmouth. The VW Passat was searched and numerous bundles of cash were discovered throughout the vehicle. Dixey was asked if there was any further cash concealed in the car or on his person, and he produced a further two bundles of cash from the pockets of his jacket and his jeans.
The cash was counted by officers and found to amount to £36,420. On 1st June, 2016, the Royal Court ordered the forfeiture of the cash.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, good previous character, delay in proceedings.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
2 years' imprisonment. |
Confiscation Order sought in the minimal sum of £1 but hearing to be adjourned until 27th September, 2017 at 10am.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
18 months' imprisonment |
Confiscation Order hearing to be adjourned until 27th September, 2017 at 10am.
Steven James Pereira
|
1 count 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 (Count 1). |
Age: 32.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Dixey above.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, delay in proceedings.
Previous Convictions:
Three convictions for six offences, including drug trafficking and possession charges, and three grave and criminal assaults.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
2 years' imprisonment. |
Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £224.80 but hearing to be adjourned until 27th September, 2017 at 10am.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
21 months' imprisonment |
Confiscation Order hearing to be adjourned until 27th September, 2017 at 10am.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq, Crown Advocate.
Mr Dixey appeared on his own behalf.
Advocate P. S. Landick for Pereira.
Advocate S. A Pearmain acting as Amicus Curiae.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. The defendants are to be sentenced for one count of entering into a money laundering arrangement. They have pleaded guilty on the basis accepted by the prosecution.
2. Dixey was asked to come to Jersey to collect money and bring it back to the UK for a payment of £500 plus his holiday expenses, which he hasn't received. He was not told where the money had come from or why he was collecting it. He believed it to be in the region of £20,000. He was told to liaise with an individual he now knows to be his co-defendant, Mr Pereira. The telephone records do show only one call between them. He was seen approaching a car driven by Pereira, leaning inside the front passenger window and taking a large brown paper bag. He counted the money in his hotel room and found it totalled £36,000 and as this was more than he was expecting he became suspicious that it was tainted, but felt he had no choice but to see it through.
3. Mr Pereira says his involvement was as a favour to a friend. He was provided with the money and a phone number, together with a mobile phone and he purchased a SIM card in order to use that phone. He contacted Dixey and at the exchange, which lasted no more than 20 seconds, he says no words were said. He denies receiving any remuneration. He did not know Dixey, how much was in the bag or its source, but he did suspect it represented the proceeds of crime.
4. The principles to be applied to a sentencing in cases of this kind are set out in the Superior Number case of AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 and just to repeat those:-
(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. Applying those factors the prosecution say that the likely source of this cash was drug trafficking in Jersey, and the assistance provided was in the transfer of the proceeds of that drug trafficking from Jersey to England, a vital part of the criminal operation, but the prosecution accept that the defendants had no knowledge of the predicate offence. The amount involved was £36,420 but the prosecution do not regard this as a particularly sophisticated operation.
6. Dealing first with Mr Dixey, he has no previous convictions and is assessed at a low risk of re-conviction in 12 months. He has the benefit of a guilty plea and has a lengthy employment record and the support of a network of family and friends. There is no evidence of alcohol or drug misuse. He is also the carer for his mother. He addressed us personally and we have no doubt that his remorse is genuine. The Court has also seen the references and other letters he has produced to us.
7. Turning to Mr Pereira, he does have a criminal record with three convictions for six offences of violence and drug possession and supply. For the latter he received a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years. He is an occasional user of cannabis but does not consider his use to be problematic. He too pleaded guilty and is assessed at a relatively low risk of re-conviction in 12 months because he has a strong employment record, strong family and strong family values. He has previously undertaken community service and completed that well. He has a long term partner and two children and has written us a good letter showing genuine remorse. We have also had regard to the references that he has provided to us.
8. The prosecution seek a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for each defendant but the defendants urge us to impose a community sentence. It is the case that in AG v Turney [2016] JRC 175, which involved a sum of £42,000 found in the defendant's car as he was leaving on the ferry, the Court imposed a suspended sentence for 2 years because of the exceptional reasons that applied in that case, including the defendant's medical and psychological condition and other factors set out in papers that were before that Court. The Court nevertheless made it plain that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate and only imposed 2 years because that was the maximum sentence that under our law can be suspended. It said that if it was imposing an immediate sentence it would have considered a higher sentence. In AG v Cleaver [2016] JRC 080 a community service sentence was imposed but the Court said it made it clear that it was not to be seen as a precedent. In AG v Brennan [2016] JRC 234 the Court imposed a sentence of 12 months' for an offence involving £11,660 and in AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for an offence involving £3,880. In AG v Whelan Grace and Robinson [2017] JRC 040B the Court declined to impose community service for offences involving £80,000 in cash for defendants of good character with guilty pleas and defendants assessed at a low risk of offending. Sentences of 2 years and 21 months' imprisonment were imposed, the lower sentence reflecting particular co-operation with that defendant and information he had apparently given to the police.
9. Both defendants are to be sentenced on the basis that they did not know the source of the money but, as Crown Advocate Maletroit says, the most likely underlying criminality in this case is drug trafficking in that:-
(i) Pereira is a drug taker with a previous conviction and according to the prosecution was an associate of Whelan, the defendant in AG-v-Whelan and Others who has been sentenced for money laundering the proceeds of crime, also thought to involve drug trafficking.
(ii) The way that Pereira was given a mobile phone and the purchase of a SIM card in order to make the call; and
(iii) The fact that the money was being taken out of the Island.
10. Dealing in drugs cannot thrive unless individuals are prepared to assist both in its supply and in the channelling of the proceeds of its sale. Both form a central part of the web and both should be regarded as serious matters. As Crown Advocate Maletroit said "just as there would not be thieves without receivers, there would not be drug traffickers without money launderers." Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the defendant's conduct and also have a deterrent element.
11. Both defendants have strong mitigation, but in our view this kind of conduct warrants an immediate custodial sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances and, sadly for them and their families, we cannot see any. However, there are two factors in their favour which will enable us to reduce the sentences. Firstly, there has been a very long delay from arrest in March 2016 and the charge in February of this year. This case was apparently put in abeyance whilst the investigation and case involving Whelan and others was progressed and we think that warrants a reduction in the conclusions of the Crown with which we would otherwise agree. In addition, we think that Mr Dixey, having no convictions and in view of the other material that he put forward to us, has greater mitigation available to him and we will therefore be giving him a greater allowance for that.
12. Mr Dixey, you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and Mr Pereira to 21 months' imprisonment.
Authorities
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.