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 G [2018] JRC 166 (10 September 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2018/2018_166.html
Cite as: [2018] JRC 166
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Nicolle, Ramsden, Thomas, Ronge and Pitman. |
The Attorney General
-v-
G
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 29th June, 2018, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
2 counts of: |
Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999. (Counts 1 and 3) |
|
2 counts of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Counts 4 and 5)
|
Age: 18
Plea: Guity.
Details of Offence:
On 17th March, 2018, the defendant sent an email under a false name to the Mayfair Hotel ("the Mayfair") requesting a reservation and also enquiring whether a letter could be delivered. The Mayfair then received two telephone calls from the defendant, under the same false name, who informed them that a package would be delivered to the hotel, and asking to be notified when it arrived. The Mayfair informed him that they only receive packages for guests, so the defendant made a reservation.
Police were called to the Mayfair as staff were suspicious of the two packages that had been received addressed to the name that had been used by the defendant. Both had stamps showing they were sent from the Netherlands. The packages were decanted and found to contain a combined total of 301 MDMA tablets (Count 3).
The defendant subsequently attended the Mayfair and paid in cash for the reservation. He did not ask about the packages. The Police identified the defendant from CCTV footage and arrested him.
A search was conducted at the defendant's home address. A red money tin was recovered and found to contain 52.37 grams of MDMA crystal (Count 1), small quantities of cannabis (Count 4) and ketamine (Count 5), small ziplock 'deal' bags and digital weighing scales.
The defendant was interviewed and admitted importing the MDMA tablets, having ordered the drugs from the dark web. He also admitted travelling on the ferry on an earlier date to France to pick up the MDMA crystal, which he had also ordered via the dark web to be delivered to a hotel in St Malo.
The defendant had planned to sell the drugs to an unnamed dealer who would sell them on. He had been assisted with organising the importation of the MDMA crystal by two associates who had provided financial contributions and handled the drugs when they had been imported into Jersey. He stated that "they do all the dirty work" and he "would normally do all the numbers 'cause neither of them [the associates] are that intelligent". The Defendant said he expected to take a 47.5% cut of the profits, which reflected his involvement in the venture. In relation to the MDMA tablets, which the defendant had paid for himself, he said that he would have received 100% of the profits.
The total street value of the 301 MDMA tablets was between £4,515.00 - £7,525.00 (Count 3). The estimated potential value that the defendant would have received if the tablets were sold wholesale at £14.00 per tablet is £4,214.00. The street value of the MDMA crystal (£100.00 per gram), was approximately £5,200.00 (Count 1). The Defendant stated that he would receive £40.00 per gram, and therefore would have received £2,080.00.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea at an early stage, remorse, excellent references, full co-operation with police including significant information regarding his drug activities, wrote his own indictment in respect of the importation of the MDMA crystal, no previous convictions, youth including the fact that he was under the age of 18 at the time of the MDMA importation.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
2 years' youth detention, concurrent to Count 3. |
|
Count 3: |
2½ years' youth detention. |
|
Count 4: |
2 weeks' youth detention; concurrent to Count 3. |
|
Count 5 |
2 weeks' youth detention, concurrent to Count 3. |
Total: 2½ years' youth detention.
Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £10,187.17.
Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1.00.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
312 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3. |
|
Count 3: |
384 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2½ years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 4: |
40 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 5. |
40 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 1 weeks' imprisonment. |
Total: 384 hours' community service (equivalent to 2 ½ years' imprisonment).
Confiscation Order granted.
C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced for the importation of MDMA a Class A drug and possession of some Cannabis and some Ketamine. The total value of the MDMA in tablet and crystal form has a street value of between £9,715 and £12,725. You were to profit from that transaction.
2. It is clear that your activities were calculated and that it was to the large extent your operation and that your share of the profits was either total or significant. This is on any analysis a serious offence.
3. We note however the mitigation available to you. You have given the police significant information about your activities. You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity although the evidence against you on the initial importation was strong. You did however, in effect write your own Indictment when it came to the MDMA Crystal and that is very significantly to your credit.
4. We note your remorse which we take to be genuine and we have considered your letter with great care. We also note that you have no previous convictions and of course we take your youth into account as affording you a substantial mitigation in the circumstances, especially to our mind as you were under 18 at the time of the MDMA Crystal importation.
5. We have read the references which speak exceptionally well of you and it seems inexplicable to all who know you how you fell into such stupid, dangerous and anti-social behaviour. You have already lost a bursary that was available to you and you have put in jeopardy what might be a promising career.
6. We have regard, as we must to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 which provides at Article 4(2) that we should not pass a sentence of youth detention unless (and I leave out the irrelevant sections for our purposes) the offence or the totality of the offending is otherwise so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.
7. We have accordingly given the most anxious consideration as to whether we can possibly stretch in your case to the imposition of a non-custodial sentence on the grounds that the circumstances are exceptional.
8. Now, I have to tell you that the decision of the Court has not been unanimous in this regard, however taking all of the available mitigation into account especially the contents of the Social Enquiry Report and the other documents before the Court we believe that we can on this occasion impose a non-custodial sentence.
9. Accordingly, you are sentenced as follows: Count 1; 312 hours' community service the equivalent of 2 years', Count 3, 384 hours' community service the equivalent of 2½ years', Count 4; 40 hours' community service the equivalent of 2 weeks'; Count 5; 40 hours' community service the equivalent of 2 weeks'. All to run concurrently, making a total of 384 hours' community service the equivalent of 2½ years'.
10. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
11. Now, let me give you a warning. Community service is difficult and you have been sentenced to a very substantial period of it. You will lose for a protracted period most of your weekends and other time as well. You will find it a challenge but we expect you to perform it impeccably. If you do not and if you come back before us you will be dealt with as someone who has failed in this opportunity and you must expect the Court will deal with you by way of imprisonment. Do you understand?
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014.
Rimmer, Lusk and Bade v AG [2001] JLR 373