Jersey Unreported Judgments

Legal argument - application for defendant Wolff to be sentenced separately

[2020]JRC138A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

9 July 2020

The Attorney General

-v-

Nicholas Maxwell Thurban

Colin Russel Sait

Paul Dennis Brown

Daniel Niall Riley

John Alexander Roy

Deborah Karen Wolff

Darius James Andrew Pearce

and

Jon Adam Hughes

M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate F. J. Littler for Defendant Wolff.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        This is an application by the defendant Wolff to be sentenced in advance of her co-defendants in what is a complex drug importation and money laundering case with eight defendants involving some seventeen counts. 

2.        The facts are set out in a 263 paragraph Crown's Case Summary which I will not try and summarise now.  Although at the lower end of culpability for this offending the defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of money laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking; serious offences which carry a maximum penalty of 14 years. 

3.        In summary, and having listened to the submissions made by Advocate Littler on behalf of the defendant I am not persuaded that she should be sentenced separately from her co-defendants for the following reasons:

(i)        In practice that sentencing would take place at the earliest in mid to late August, a matter of weeks only before the sentencing of the other defendants which has been fixed for the 22^nd and 23^rd September.

(ii)       The facts here are not sufficient in my view for the Court to depart from the general principle that defendants should be sentenced at the same time as laid down in the English Court of Appeal case of R v Weekes [1982] Cr.App.R.161 where it was said:

"There may be exceptions but generally it is clearly right, it is clearly fairer, and it is better for both the public and all the defendants concerned, that all are sentenced at the same time by the same Court whenever that is possible, and in our judgment it was possible here."

(iii)      The convention to sentence co-defendants together is, I agree with Advocate Maletroit, in line with the overriding objective to ensure that criminal proceedings are dealt with justly as provided by Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Jersey) Law 2018 (the "2018 Law").  According to Article 3(1) of the 2018 Law dealing with criminal proceedings "justly" includes "ensuring that appropriate information is available to the court when bail or sentence is being considered".  In cases involving multiple defendants the sentencing court will need to consider each defendant in turn and assess the level of their involvement in the criminal enterprise in order to properly assess their respective involvement and culpability.  The Court needs to be provided with the facts relating to each defendant's involvement in the enterprise, their basis of plea and any mitigation advanced on their behalf.  I agree with Crown Advocate Maletroit that this is particularly important in this present case where the defendant is jointly charged with the defendant Hughes in respect of the two money laundering arrangements and the defendant Hughes, Riley and Roy are to be sentenced in respect of separate money laundering offences concerning similar conduct.  It is therefore possible for the defendant Wolff to be sentenced alongside her co-defendants before the Superior Number on 22^nd and 23^rd September, 2020.

(iv)      I am not persuaded that, from the case law that I have been shown, that the maximum sentence that will be passed on the defendant is 18 months, notwithstanding the mitigation that Advocate Littler has indicated will be available to the defendant.

4.        Therefore the application is refused and the defendant is remanded in custody to be sentenced before the Superior Number on 22^nd and 23^rd September, 2020. 

Authorities

R v Weekes [1982] Cr.App.R.161. 

Criminal Procedure (Jersey) Law 2018