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 Smitton Banach and Reeves [2019] JRC 093 (23 May 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2019/2019_093.html
Cite as: [2019] JRC 93, [2019] JRC 093
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - Class A
|
Before : |
Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden, Thomas, Pitman, Christensen and Averty. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Alan James Smitton
John Anthony Banach
Simon Reeves
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 22nd March, 2019, following Smitton's conviction at trial on 20th November, 2018, and guilty pleas by Banach and Reeves to the following charge:
Alan James Smitton
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Count 2). |
Age: 46.
Plea: Not Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The case stems from a surveillance operation conducted by the States of Jersey Police at the end of 2017, which culminated in the seizure of a substantial quantity of heroin from Reeves' address.
At approximately 3pm on 6th December, 2017, Banach was the subject of surveillance when he was observed attending at Reeves' address. Banach was stopped and searched when he left the premises approximately an hour later. Banach appeared to be under the influence of drugs but no drugs were found on his person. He was in possession of a mobile phone, numerous syringes (two of which appeared to have been used), and a document which had a list of figures written on it.
Officers executed a search warrant at Reeves' address. Reeves was alone in the flat. Officers noticed two brown lumps of heroin (amounting to 1.9g heroin of 7% purity) and some brown residue on a magazine on a coffee table in the living area. Reeves was arrested on suspicion of possession of heroin. He made no reply to caution. The brown lumps and residue were seized.
A police dog handler attended at Reeves' address to assist with the search. It was explained to Reeves that a dog would be deployed to search for drugs, and he was asked if there were any other drugs in the flat. Reeves stated: "there is some more heroin in the drawer under the bed but it's not mine I am looking after it for someone".
When deployed inside the flat, the police dog indicated a drawer under the bed in the bedroom. Officers located a Bio-Synergy protein tub which contained 405.41 grams of heroin of 7% purity. Officers also found various other items of interest, including a wallet containing £2,212 in cash, three mobile phones, numerous SIM cards and SIM card packs, plastic wrapping with holes cut out of it, and a set of digital scales.
Reeves and Banach were both arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to supply heroin.
Smitton became a suspect following analysis of telecommunications data, which revealed a substantial amount of telephone contact between Banach and Reeves, and between Banach and Smitton, at the material time. DNA analysis also provided very strong support that Smitton, Banach and Reeves all contributed DNA to the inner circumference of the protein tub in which the heroin was found. Smitton was arrested and charged, together with Banach and Reeves, with conspiracy to supply heroin.
The total heroin seized in this case amounted to 407.31g.
Smitton was the local principal of the enterprise. He recruited Banach, and gave Banach the heroin in the Protein Tub, and delegated to him the tasks of finding a stash location and helping to find buyers. Smitton knew Banach was a heroin dealer, and knew that Banach had the contacts needed to facilitate onward supply. Smitton was higher up the supply chain than his co-defendants.
Banach was in constructive control of the heroin at the time it was seized. He was responsible for involving Reeves and arranging to use Reeves' flat as the stash location. Banach took the heroin to Reeves address. Thereafter, he maintained a high volume of telephone contact with Reeves, and visited the flat regularly. Banach's role was to facilitate onward supply of the heroin. The heroin was prepared for onward distribution at Reeves' address, and the telecommunications evidence suggested that Banach was "heavily involved" in dealing heroin.
Reeves was the custodian of the heroin. He permitted his flat to be used as the stash location and the location where the heroin could be prepared for onward distribution. Reeves accepted the risk of minding the heroin in return for small quantities of heroin for his own use. There is no evidence to suggest that Reeves was involved in the actual dealing of the heroin. However, his role in the enterprise was an important one.
Details of Mitigation:
None.
Previous Convictions:
16 convictions for 38 offences, 15 of which are drug offences. Sentenced by the Royal Court in 2001 for numerous drug offences including possession with intent to supply heroin; and in 2006 for conspiracy to import 70kg of cannabis
Conclusions:
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 16 years' imprisonment. 20 years' imprisonment. |
Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £58,400.
Confiscation order sought in the sum of £120.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 16 years' imprisonment. 17 years' imprisonment |
Declaration of benefit made in the sum of £58,400.
Confiscation order made in the sum of £120.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered
John Anthony Banach
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Count 2). |
Age: 49.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See above.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea (although entered late in the day).
Previous Convictions:
Three convictions for six offences, including three drug offences. Sentenced by the Royal Court in 2001 in respect of possession and possession with intent to supply heroin
Conclusions:
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 15 years' imprisonment. 11 years and 3 months' imprisonment. |
Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £1,700.
Confiscation order sought in the nominal sum of £1.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 14 years' imprisonment. 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment. |
Declaration of benefit made in the sum of £1,700.
Confiscation order made in the nominal sum of £1.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered
Simon Reeves
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug (Count 2). |
Age: 52.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See above.
Details of Mitigation:
Admitted involvement from the outset and was co-operative in interview. Guilty plea (although entered late in the day).
Previous Convictions:
One offence of theft and numerous motoring offences. No previous drug offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 14 years' imprisonment. 9 years' imprisonment. |
Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £1,200.
Confiscation order sought in the sum of £1,200. .
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 13 years' imprisonment. 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment. |
Declaration of benefit made in the sum of £1,200.
Confiscation order made in the sum of £1,200.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for Defendant Smitton.
Advocate M. J. Haines for Defendant Banach.
Advocate S. E. A. Dale for Defendant Reeves.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. The Court has already dealt with the question of confiscation in relation to Mr Smitton's offending dealt with this afternoon, but we left over the confiscation order from this morning in relation to the cannabis charge. We declare the benefit there to have been £507,000 and the realisable amount is less than that benefit figure and we order a nominal confiscation order of £1 in relation to the cannabis Indictment this morning.
2. The reasons for these sentences which are about to be handed down will be given later, but in summary dealing first with Mr Smitton, if we had been looking at dealing with this afternoon's Indictment on its own, subject to the assessment of the involvement in drug trafficking which we think entitles us to take this morning's charge into consideration, we would have started with a starting point of 16 years, and having regard to personal mitigation would have finished at 15 years and this sentence would have been consecutive to the 9 years that we said this morning we would have imposed there. However, on totality grounds 24 years appears to us to be far too much and on totality grounds we are reducing the overall sentence to 17 years' imprisonment, and that will be arrived at by imposing 17 years on the Indictment this afternoon and imposing 9 years concurrent instead of consecutive on the cannabis charge this morning.
3. Mr Smitton you are sentenced to a total sum of 17 years' imprisonment. We revoke the Community Service Order and Probation Order and there will be no separate penalty on that. As I say the full reasons will be reserved.
4. Mr Banach in your case we take a starting point of 14 years' imprisonment and the sentence will be 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
5. Mr Reeves in your case we take a starting point of 13 years' imprisonment and the sentence will be 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
6. We order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Community Service Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001