Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation Class B - removing criminal property from jurisdiction.

[2017]JRC151A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

18 September 2017

Before     :

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen, Grime, Ramsden and Pitman.

The Attorney General

-v-

Doru-Octav Niculai

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 28th July, 2017, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).
3 counts of:	Removing criminal property from Jersey, contrary to Article 31(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 2, 3 and 4).

Age:  31.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant, a single man, was stopped by Customs Officers at the Elizabeth Terminal after arriving from St Malo.  Answering routine questions he denied having any restricted or prohibited items in his possession.  When apparent his luggage was about to be searched volunteered that he had 3 kilos of cannabis resin in his suitcase.  The defendant was fully cooperative during interview; made full admissions that three previous visits to the Island had been to collect tainted cash for a Romanian drug dealer.  The defendant had worked in the Island during 2011-2013 but following the death of his father returned to live in Romania where he provided support to his mother and a sister who has a child with a debilitating illness.  He had been aware of the local cost of cannabis and, having been rewarded with £1,500 for each of three round trips to collect drug proceeds for a Romanian drug trafficker, planned to undertake an importation for his own benefit, assessed at £15,000.  The proceeds were to assist in funding his studies in veterinary practice and provide support to his family.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; remorse; cooperation.  In the true sense of the expression 'wrote his own indictment' with regard to the proceeds of crime offences, volunteered names of those involved at both ends and the source of the cannabis he imported, purchased in France.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Taking account of the principle of totality the Crown moved for the sentences on Counts 2, 3 & 4 to run concurrent with each other but consecutive to Count 1.

Count 1:	Starting point 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.  2 years imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 4:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation order sought in the nominal amount of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought

Forfeiture and destruction of the iphone 5 sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	Starting point 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  1 year and 9 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1.
Count 3:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 4:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.

Total: 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order made in the nominal amount of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Forfeiture and destruction of the iphone 5 ordered.

Recommendation for deportation made.

Mrs E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced for one count of the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, namely cannabis resin, and three counts of removing substantial sums representing the proceeds of criminal activity, namely drug-trafficking, over a one year period. 

2.        The first count, which you admitted, concerned 2,975.18 grams of cannabis resin with a wholesale value of between £15,000 and £18,000 and a street value of between £45 and £60,000.  In interview you readily admitted the exportation of the tainted money on three occasions.  The sum involved we accept were on each occasion less than £10,000.  You have pleaded guilty and in effect wrote your own Indictment for Counts 2, 3 and 4.  We take you as a trusted courier of money for those charges but as acting on your own account in connection with the importation of drugs. 

3.        You were extremely cooperative and you have named individuals in connection with all of those offences and you agreed to that fact to be referred to in open court.  We have noted your letter of remorse and the letter from your sister.  We note the challenges that you have faced which are set out both in the defence papers and in the reports that we have read carefully.  You have no previous convictions of note.  This and the contents of the social enquiry report lend us to believe that there is substantial mitigation available to you.  Nonetheless this was a significant importation of drugs.

4.        Dealing first with the Attorney-General's statement, which you accept, we declare that you have benefitted from drug-trafficking to the extent of £19,500 and we make a Confiscation Order in the nominal sum of £1.

5.        Turning now to the question of sentence, in our view the Crown has correctly identified the starting point as being 3 years and 6 months.  We do not think however that the Crown has made sufficient allowance for the substantial mitigation available to you, both personally and generally in connection with your offending. 

6.        Accordingly you are sentenced with regard to Count 1 to 1 year and 9 months' imprisonment.  With regard to Count 2 we do not think that sufficient allowance has been made for all of the mitigation and the specific fact that you have written your own Indictment and we sentence you to 9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2.  With regard to Counts 3 and 4, we sentence you to 9 months' imprisonment for each of those, concurrent to Count 2, making a total of 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

7.        We have considered the matter of deportation which has not been resisted on your behalf by counsel and the test in AG-v-Camacho [2007] JLR 462.  We are completely satisfied that both limbs of the test are adequately met and therefore we recommend your deportation at the end of your sentence.

8.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the forfeiture of the iphone.

Authorities

AG-v-Camacho [2007] JLR 462.

Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders)(Jersey) Law 2001.

Immigration Act 1977.

Campbell & Ors. -v- AG [1995 JLR 136]

Rimmer & Ors. v AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG v Gavan [2016] JRC 223A.

AG v Turney [2016] JRC 175.

AG v Brennan [2016] JRC 234.

AG v Dixey & Pereira [2017] JRC 081.

AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165.

AG v Ferreira [2015] JRC 213.