Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A.

[2017]JRC160

Royal Court

(Samedi)

2 October 2017

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Crill, Olsen, Blampied, Grime, Ramsden, and Pitman.

The Attorney General

-v-

Steven Norman Baker

Emma Louise Lynch

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 1^st September, 2017, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Steven Norman Baker

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).

Age:  27. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

Baker and Lynch, between them, imported a total of 144·19 grams of white powder containing 21% by weight cocaine.  Initially denied carrying drugs but when informed of power to search admitted internal concealments; Baker withdrew a small package containing 21·56 grams, Lynch a 5 inch cylindrical package containing 144·19 grams.  In interview Baker claimed the trip was to celebrate their 7th anniversary, that the drugs were 'personal' and brought with them for fear they might be stolen if left at home in Liverpool.  In reports both stated importation was put to them as 'an opportunity' to clear accumulated drug debts and loan from same source and that Baker had asked Lynch to carry a package internally.  Drug expert considered the quantity as typical of a 6 ounce commercial deal with a local street value between £13,500 - £16,500.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas.  During preparation of probation report Baker informed officer of his 'overwhelming relief' heralding an end to his drug problems. 

Previous Convictions:

Baker had one previous conviction, possession of cannabis in 2015 for which he received a conditional discharge.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.  7 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £1. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court agreed the Crown's starting points were correct.

Conclusions granted. 

Emma Louise Lynch

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).

Age:  29. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Baker above.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas.  Lynch had experienced a very difficult early life which impacted on her standard of education and achievement and contributed to her lack of employment and direction.

Previous Convictions:

Lynch had received a similar disposal, also in 2015, for her one previous conviction which related to causing malicious damage to a vehicle.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.  6 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £107. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Forfeiture in respect of the mobile phone sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court agreed the Crown's starting points were correct, taking account of Lynch's subordinate rôle, and the conclusion for Baker; however in the light of the probation and psychological reports and her expressions of remorse the Court felt able to treat Lynch's tragic personal circumstances as exceptional, imposing a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment.

Count 1:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order made in the sum of £107. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

No forfeiture order of the mobile phone made.

M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Baker.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Lynch.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendants are to be sentenced for the importation of 165.75 grams of cocaine with a street value of between £13,500 and £16,500.  They were stopped by customs officers after disembarking from the Condor Liberation.  The cocaine was concealed internally on both of them.  The guidelines in Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 lay down a starting point range of between 10 and 13 years' imprisonment for quantities between 100 and 250 grams.  The Crown regard the defendants as couriers and move for a starting point of 11 years for Baker and 10 years for Lynch as it takes the view that her role was subordinate to his.  We agree that those starting points are correct. 

2.        Baker is assessed at a moderate risk of reoffending in 12 months and Lynch at a medium risk of reoffending in 12 months.  Baker has one previous conviction for possession of cannabis resin in September 2015 for which he received a conditional discharge.  Lynch has one previous conviction for malicious damage to Baker's car after she had discovered he was being unfaithful.  She was given a conditional discharge. 

3.        Allowing for mitigation, the Crown have moved for a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment for Baker and 6 years' imprisonment for Lynch.

4.        The defendants have two young children and it is a tragic consequence of their actions that their children have been deprived of their contact with and care by their parents for what will be many years.  The children are being cared for by Baker's mother with the assistance of Lynch's sister.  This provides of course no mitigation for the defendants.  They had become so immersed in a drug-taking lifestyle, they say racking up substantial debts, that they were prepared to undertake this importation together putting both of their roles as parents at risk. 

5.        In terms of mitigation they have both pleaded guilty, and they do not, as we have said, have bad records.  Lynch has suffered in particular from a very difficult childhood and from quite recent mental health problems.  Without going into more detail we agree with Advocate Haines that her personal circumstances can be described as tragic.  They have both expressed remorse and we have received letters from them and references which we have taken into account. 

6.        We are, however, conscious of the policy of the Court in combatting the evil of the drugs trade which has such a devastating effect upon the community.  Couriers play a vital role in that evil trade. 

7.        After careful consideration we agree with the conclusions of the Crown in relation to Baker, but in relation to Lynch, the Court did feel that her personal circumstances amounted to exceptional mitigation.  All of the learned Jurats agreed that there could be a reduction from the sentence sought by the Crown of 6 years' imprisonment, and by a majority have concluded that it should be reduced to 5 years. 

8.        We are not going to make an order for the forfeiture of Lynch's mobile phone which contains photos and videos of her two children.  No doubt that will be returned to her when she is released. 

9.        Mr Baker, you are sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

10.      Miss Lynch you are sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. 

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

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373.