Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A and Class B.

[2019]JRC216

Royal Court

(Samedi)

29 October 2019

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Olsen, Ramsden, Ronge, Austin-Vautier and Hughes

The Attorney General

-v-

Lukasz Przydanek

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 2^nd August, 2019, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

2 counts 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 and Count 2).

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

On Friday 24th May, 2019, a Customs Officer spoke to the defendant, who was driving a black Skoda Octavia, recently arrived on the Condor Liberation.    

  

The defendant stated he would be in Jersey for two days to visit his daughter and partner who lived on the Island.  He said that he had driven down from Liverpool, where he lived, to Poole to catch the ferry.  The defendant said that the vehicle he was driving was not registered to him, but that he had full ownership of it and that nobody else had access to it.  The defendant said he did not have any controlled drugs and had packed the vehicle himself and had not been asked to carry anything on anyone else's behalf. 

 

The spare wheel of the car held 97 brown resinous bars, weighing 9.7 kilos in total.  One block was field-tested and gave a positive indication for cannabinoids (Count 2).  Also located within the spare wheel was a black bag wrapped in cling film, which was opened and found to contain 15 white wrapped packages containing a crystalline substance, weighing approximately 400 grams, which field-tested positive to MDMA (Count 1). 

 

The defendant was interviewed twice during the afternoon and evening of 24^th May, 2019.  He said that he had obtained the spare wheel containing drugs the previous afternoon from an address in Liverpool; after receiving a phone call from someone who had "told [him] where to go".  He claimed that the person was named "Jake", and that this person had been supplying him with cocaine for the last couple of weeks.  He claimed that he was addicted to cocaine, and estimated spending £300 - £400 per week on the drug.  He said he was "in huge debt" and was to be paid for the job.  He claimed that he had had no fixed abode for a while and had been sleeping in his car.

 

He said that about a week before, Jake had rung him and asked whether he wanted to make some money.  On the afternoon of 23^rd May, 2019, he was asked by Jake to take the wheel to someone and collect it a few hours later.  The defendant said that he knew that illegal drugs had been put into the wheel, but did not know what type or quantity.    

 

He said he drove directly from Liverpool to Poole and got on the boat on the morning of 24^th May, 2019.  On arrival at the hotel in Jersey he was to have been contacted by Jake's local associate.  The defendant said that he was supposed to be paid £3,500.00.    

 

He was charged that evening with being knowingly concerned in the importation of cannabis.    

On 27^th May, 2019, he appeared in the Magistrate's Court where he entered a guilty plea to the importation of cannabis.  He was remanded in custody to 8^th July, 2019,  for committal to the Royal Court.  On that date he was charged with importing MDMA and reserved his plea.  The case was committed to the Royal Court and the defendant pleaded guilty to both charges on indictment on 2^nd August, 2019.     

 

The States Analyst confirmed that the 15 wraps of powder contained a total of 390.30 grams of MDMA, with an average purity of 84 per cent by weight of MDMA.  He also confirmed that the 97 bars of brown resinous material were cannabis resin, with a total weight of 9,416 grams. The MDMA had a local street value of between £31,200 and £39,000.  The cannabis resin had a local street value of between £141,000 and £188,000. 

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas; no previous convictions; remorse; accepted importations fully; was co-operative throughout with police; good employment record; positive social enquiry report.  

Previous Convictions:

The defendant has no previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 16 years' imprisonment.  9½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 6 years' imprisonment.    3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 9½ years' imprisonment.  

Confiscation order sought in the sum of £567.76.

Recommendation for Deportation sought. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	Starting point 14 years' imprisonment.  7½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 5 years' imprisonment.    3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  7½ years' imprisonment.  

Confiscation order made in the sum of £567.76. 

Recommendation for deportation order made.  

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. 

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This case is a cautionary tale of the damage that drugs can do.  Until fairly recently you were a law abiding citizen, you had a happy upbringing in Poland, good educational achievements, a good work record, both in Poland and in England and a family life with your partner and daughter. 

2.        Three to four years ago you were introduced to cocaine.  Recreational use soon turned to habitual use with work and family taking second place behind your need to have access to the drug.  Your habit became more consuming and extremely expensive and as a result you accumulated debts with various finance companies.  Your life had taken a dramatic turn for the worse.  

3.        It is in those circumstances that you agreed to do this drug run to Jersey on behalf of your dealers in Liverpool in exchange for £3,500 in an effort to try to reduce your debts.  Others secreted the drugs in the spare wheel of your car.  Whilst you did not know the exact amount or nature of the drugs, you knew that you were bringing drugs to the Island.  In fact the wheel contained 9.7 kilos of cannabis and 390 grams of MDMA powder of a very high purity at 84 percent. 

4.        On arrival you were to be contacted by the relevant person in Jersey to hand over the wheel and receive in exchange another wheel which would have contained the cash which you would have taken back to those who had supplied the drugs in the first place.  Fortunately for the people of Jersey you were stopped by Customs at the harbour when you arrived and the drugs were discovered. 

5.        We must consider first the starting point for what is a substantial quantity of drugs which could have done enormous damage to this Island.  The Crown has taken a starting point of 15 years for the more serious offence of the MDMA and this seems to be calculated by taking 14 years, which is the top of the applicable bracket, and adding one year because of the purity.  The Crown has then suggested what is known as a Valler uplift (Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383) to take account of the fact that there was also a quantity of cannabis and this uplift they have suggested as one year, taking the overall starting point to 16 years.  

6.        We have considered this but we have come to the conclusion that this is too high having regard to your role as a courier.  We think, that having regard to your role and to the amount, the correct starting point for the MDMA offence alone would be one of 13 years, to which we add one year as a Valler uplift, to make a starting point of 14 years. 

7.        Turning then to mitigation, you have your guilty plea and your immediate admissions.  We agree that a full one third discount should be allowed for that.  We also take into account that you have no previous convictions as I have already described.  You clearly are remorseful.  We have read your letter.  It is a very personal letter and we consider that it is genuine.  We have also taken account of the fact that you are hopefully making good use of your time in prison.  Putting all these matters together we think there are strong mitigating factors. 

8.        So, having regard to all the mitigation which appears on the papers in this case we think the correct sentence is as followings:-

9.        Count 1:  7 ½ years' imprisonment.  

10.      Count 2:  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent, having taken a starting point of 5 years for Count 2.  

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

12.      In relation to deportation we are satisfied that both limbs of the Camacho test (Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462) are met.  In view of the gravity of this offence your continued presence in the Island would not be conducive to the public good. 

13.      Secondly, there are no Article 8 factors which count in the other direction because you have no connection with the Island and therefore we make the order recommending deportation. 

Authorities

Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999

Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373

Valler v Attorney General [2002 JLR 383] 

Campbell v Attorney General [1995] JLR 136]

Attorney General v Rice [2018] JRC230B

Attorney General v Hole, Rice & Rodrigues [2018] JRC062A

Attorney General v Ferreira [2015] JRC213

Attorney General v Benyoucef [2009] JRC 014

Camacho v Attorney General [2007] JLR 462