Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Drugs - importation - Class A and Class B

[2021]JRC017

Royal Court

(Samedi)

21 January 2021

The Attorney General

-v-

Kelly Jane Robertson

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 9^th October, 2020, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  45. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The defendant imported 67.09 grams of cocaine and 4.70 grams of cannabis.  She concealed the drugs internally.  She was arrested outside the airport on 8^th August, 2020, as she arrived in Jersey from Liverpool

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas but in circumstances guilty pleas were all but inevitable and was cooperative with officers throughout the proceedings. 

Previous Convictions:

Various, including one offence of possession of amphetamine in 2004.

Conclusions:

Total:  4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

M. T. Jowitt Q.C., Solicitor General.

Advocate J W. R Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

the Commissioner:

1.        The defendant is charged on an Indictment with being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition of the importation of cocaine under Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 and also of cannabis, and although the charge is being knowingly concerned, she did in fact import the drugs personally.

2.        The circumstances of that, as appears from the Social Enquiry Report, are that as she was attending her brother's funeral in Jersey she was approached and asked to bring in the drugs subsequently for a financial reward, which it turns out was going to be in the order of £3,500.  She travelled on a flight from Liverpool.  She left the airport in Jersey and was met by a male in the short stay carpark.  Having then been arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the importation she immediately confirmed that she had controlled drugs concealed internally.

3.        The total weight of the drugs was 67.09 grams of cocaine with a purity between 54 and 60%, the likelihood being that it would have been adulterated for onward sale, and cannabis weighing 4.7 grams.  So immediately in relation to the cannabis, that it is of a quantity which is outside the guidelines in Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136.  We do not regard the amount as being significant and will not be applying any Valler uplift (Valler v AG [2002] JLR 282).

4.        The rest of what I have to say concerns the importation of cocaine.  On that offence, as no doubt the defendant has been advised, the Court's approach is governed by the Court of Appeal decision in Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 and our job first is to assess an appropriate starting point.  At 67.09 grams, the quantity involved puts the defendant in the bracket of 9 to 11 years for the starting point, the Crown has taken 10 years.  We think that having regard to both the quantity which is slightly below 50% of the high point of the bracket; and to the role in drug trafficking, because the defendant was acting only as a courier.  We say "only" not to minimise that activity because it is an important part of the offending of drug trafficking, but nonetheless, it is not as significant as someone who is more closely involved with drug trafficking generally.  We think the right starting point is 9½ years' imprisonment.

5.        We then turn to the questions of personal mitigation which Advocate Bell has set out very fully before us.  We agreed with his submission that we should allow a full one third discount for the guilty plea and we have noted the immediate admissions which were made by the defendant and indeed remorse which had been subsequently expressed.

6.        Ms Robertson, you will know from your own difficulties with both alcohol and with drugs how pernicious the drug trade is and the approach which we take in this Court is deliberately intended to keep drugs out of this Island as far as possible to protect our community; and that is why what appears to be, in some respects, a more rigorous sentencing regime than applies in the United Kingdom is applied here.

7.        We have looked carefully at all the mitigation Advocate Bell has put before us.  We take particular account of the genuineness of the character references which have been put in, which speak not only well of the family but also of the defendant, and we also have regard to mental health issues and the remorse that has been expressed.  We note that the defendant is a first offender in terms of drug trafficking although she does not have the advantage of good character otherwise.  We have taken particular account, of course, of all this material and all the other material which is before the court.

8.        Ms Robertson you made a very very bad decision.  The result is going to be a lengthy custodial sentence, with all the risks that subsequently, if you are found to be owing money to those who supplied drugs to you, that will be a problem on your release as well; and you are going to have to start thinking about that and how you are going to deal with it in order to take advantage of the positive signs which your counsel has referred us to, what is in the Social Enquiry Report, and your family's support.

9.        We think the Conclusions of the Crown are right.  Accordingly you are sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment on Count 1, and 2 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent on Count 2.

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

Authorities

Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. 

Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383.