Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Drugs - Possession and Supply - Class A - Removing the proceeds of criminal conduct from jurisdiction

[2021]JRC056

Royal Court

(Samedi)

1 March 2021

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden, Averty and Hughes

The Attorney General

-v-

Anna Arej Agathangelou

Jason Paul Bayliss

Paul Emmanuel Bisson

And

Daniel Karl Morgan

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 4^th December, 2020, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Anna Arej Agathangelou

Amended Indictment

1 count of:

Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).

Age:  48

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

On 28^th October 2019, Bisson (using a pseudonym) posted a package containing £1,000, a brake hose and an instruction manual to an address in Liverpool.  The cash was criminal property (Count 1).

 

In respect of Count 2, there were three importations of heroin during the life of the conspiracy (13^th November 2019, 4^th December 2019, and 22^nd January 2020) which brought the drugs into Jersey for onward supply.  Agathangelou was the courier, who would conceal the drugs internally on flights from London Gatwick.  She arrived in Jersey, took a bus to Burger King in St Helier, and then passed the drugs to Bisson for a financial reward.  Agathangelou would then return to the UK.  Bayliss acted as the driver for Bisson and was involved in the distribution and storage of the heroin in collusion with Bisson.  Bisson acted as the Jersey contact with the UK based Organised Crime Group providing the drugs and the initial delivery following their importation.  Bisson was also actively involved in exporting the proceeds of the drug trafficking to London.

 

On 19^th December 2019, Morgan accompanied Bisson to Jersey Airport in a car driven by Bayliss.  A suitcase was checked-in under Morgan's name with both Morgan and Bisson due to fly to London Gatwick (paid for by Bisson).  The two remained in the departures lounge where Bisson withdrew cash and gave some to Morgan.  Morgan was then called by airport security and his bag was searched in front of him.  The suitcase contained £20,000 cash and was criminal property that Morgan and Bisson had attempted to remove from the Island (Count 3).  Morgan's person was searched and £1,104 was retrieved from his wallet (Count 3A).  Morgan was interviewed and Bisson left the airport.  Morgan accompanied Bisson in exchange for small quantity of heroin and a paid trip to London.

 

On 22^nd January, 2020, (the third and final importation), Customs Officers had followed Agathangelou on her arrival into Jersey Airport where she then met Bisson at a table in Burger King.  Agathangelou handed the heroin (255.41 grams) to Bisson, who then handed Agathangelou over a package.  Bisson stood up and left Burger King.  Bisson saw a Customs Officer approaching and attempted to dispose of the heroin in a public bin.  He was arrested and the drugs retrieved.  Agathangelou was also arrested.  Bayliss, who was waiting in his car nearby, was then arrested and his car searched.  Officer's retrieved 1.59 grams of cannabis behind the driver's seat (Count 4).  Bayliss' address was subsequently searched and a cannabis plant (with a potential yield of 56 grams) was also seized (Count 5).

 

Aggravating features were that the conspiracy involved three importations which is treated as an aggravating feature in respect of Count 2

Details of Mitigation:

Benefit of guilty plea.  Agathangelou pleaded guilty on indictment (27^th March, 2020).  Agathangelou's first offence and received appropriate credit due to her previous good character.

Previous Convictions:

Agathangelou did not have a national or local criminal record.

Conclusions:

Count 2:

Starting point 11 years imprisonment.  6 years' imprisonment.

Declaration of benefit agreed in the sum of £2629.31.  Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £198.40.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusion granted.

Jason Paul Bayliss

Amended Indictment

1 count of:	Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 4).
1 count of:	Production of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 5).

Age:  45

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Agathangelou above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Bayliss pleaded guilty post-indictment on 1^st May 2020.  Bayliss has an extensive criminal record and thus did not receive any credit for good character.

Previous Convictions:

Bayliss has 29 convictions including 19 drugs offences to which his most recent three convictions were for possession (last sentenced in 2017).  One previous conviction in August 2008 for conspiracy to supply a heroin where he received 6 months' imprisonment, and one conviction for two offences of supplying cocaine and heroin in July 2004 where he received 3 years' imprisonment.

Conclusions:

Count 2:	Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.  7 years and 6 month's imprisonment.
Count 4:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  7 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 2:	Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.  7 years imprisonment.
Count 4:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  7 years imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Paul Emmanuel Bisson

Amended Indictment

1 count of:	Attempted removal of criminal property from the Island of Jersey, contrary to Article 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Attempted removal of criminal property from the Island of Jersey, contrary to Article 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009 (Count 3).

Age:  42. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Agathangelou above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea. Bisson pleaded guilty post-indictment on 1 May 2020.  Bisson has an extensive criminal record and thus did not receive any credit for good character.

Previous Convictions:

Bisson has 96 convictions comprising of 29 drugs offences and was last convicted in 2018 for possession of cannabis. Bisson has four historic offences for possession of diamorphine in February 2004, January 2006 and December 2006, and one conviction for four fraud and kindred offences in February 2013.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 2:	Starting point 12 years' imprisonment.  8 years and 6 month's imprisonment.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2.

Total:  9 years' imprisonment.

Declaration of benefit agreed in the sum of £88,255.00.  Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £20,400.00.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 2:	Starting point 12 years imprisonment.  8 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment consecutive to Count 2.

Total:  9 years' imprisonment

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Declaration of benefit agreed in the sum of £88,255.00.  Confiscation Order made in the sum of £20,400.00.

Daniel Karl Morgan

Amended Indictment

1 count of:	Attempted removal of criminal property from the Island of Jersey, contrary to Article 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Possession of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 3a).

Second Indictment

6 counts of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition in force with respect to the importation of goods, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1,2,3,4,6 and 7).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 5)

Age:  39. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Agathangelou above.

 

In relation to the Second Indictment, between 25^th July 2019 and 7^th November 2019, Morgan (using pseudonyms) imported varying quantities and types of Class A drugs to his step-father's address via the Jersey postal system comprising of cocaine (13.91 grams at 79%), heroin (on four occasions varying from 983milligrams to 1.97 grams between 27% and 71% purity) and chloro2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (6 paper tablets).  Morgan's address was also searched, and he was found to be in possession of 1,288 milligrams of Ethylphenidate.  Morgan denied importing the drugs in his first two interviews, but eventually admitted importing the drugs.  Morgan accepted he did so on the basis that these were for his own personal use.  The Crown did not accept the basis and a Newton Hearing was held.  The Court found in favour of Morgan's version of events

Details of Mitigation:

Benefit of guilty pleas.  Morgan pleaded guilty on Indictment on a basis rejected by the Crown.  However, as the Court found in favour of Morgan at the Newton Hearing, Morgan is to be afforded the full benefit of a guilty plea. 

 

Morgan has a criminal record and did not receive any credit for good character.  However, the Crown considered Morgan's genuine remorse at his offending behaviour, his attempts to change his lifestyle and all the papers before it.

Previous Convictions:

Morgan has 12 convictions for 45 offences including 1 drug offence from 2006 (possession of diamorphine).

Conclusions:

Amended Indictment

Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2 of the Second Indictment.
Count 3a:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 2:	Starting point 8 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 4:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 6:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 7:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.

Total:  4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Declaration of benefit agree in the sum of £6,094.76.  Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £704.00

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, mobile telephone and black tower computer sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Amended Indictment

Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2 of the Second Indictment.
Count 3a:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 3.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 2:	Starting point 8 years' imprisonment.  3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 4:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 6:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.
Count 7:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2.

Total:  4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Declaration of benefit agree in the sum of £6,094.76.  Confiscation Order made in the sum of £704.00

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, mobile telephone and black tower computer ordered.

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. C. Robinson for Defendant Agathangelou.

Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for Defendant Bayliss

Advocate C. G. Hillier for Defendant Bisson

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Defendant Morgan

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Anna Agathangelou, Jason Bayliss, Paul Bisson and Daniel Morgan you appear before the Court today in order to be sentenced for serious offences involving conspiracy to supply and actual importation of Class A drugs into the Island.  You Agathangelou, Bayliss and Bisson are to be sentenced for conspiracy to supply 255 grams of heroin into Jersey between 12^th November, 2019, and 23^rd January, 2020.  Bayliss and Morgan, you also face separate charges in respect of drug offences committed on your own, and Bisson and Morgan you are to be sentenced for offences involving money laundering. 

2.        You all played separate and distinct roles in relation to this importation.  Each had a role that was crucial and without it (I speak in relation to Count 2 now), the criminal conspiracy to which you were party could not succeed.  Agathangelou, you are now 48 years old, you have no previous convictions and perhaps that is why you were selected to bring this heroin into Jersey on three occasions in November and  December 2019 and January 2020.  You accepted that you knew how the drug trade worked and that you carried out these importations for financial reward. 

3.        Bayliss you are 45 years old and have previous convictions including 19 drug offences including a 3 year sentence in relation to offences involving heroin in 2004 and 6½ years in 2008.  You were the driver in Jersey, and you organised the distribution and storage of the heroin in collusion with Bisson, and as driver, your role was integral to the success of the operation. 

4.        Bisson, you are 42 years old and have many previous criminal convictions including 29 drugs offences.  You were, the Crown say, and it is not disputed, the Jersey contact with the UK Organised Crime Group which provided the drugs.  Furthermore, you were actively involved in exporting the proceeds of the drug trafficking back to your suppliers.  Accordingly, your role was crucial too - moving the drugs in and around Jersey and sending money to the United Kingdom. 

5.        Morgan, you are 39 years old.  You have previous convictions for many offences, although only one drug offence recorded against you.  You were involved in the attempt to export the proceeds of the drug trafficking with Bisson, including £19,000 in cash in a suitcase.  You also fall to be sentenced in relation to a separate indictment which concerns you only - six postal importations of drugs for your personal use and an offence of possession of a drug. 

6.        Morgan, we will deal with the offences on this second indictment first in terms of summarising the circumstances as they were first in time.

7.        Between 25^th July, 2019, and 7^th November, 2019, six postal packages were intercepted at Jersey Post Headquarters, all addressed to the place where you were living at the time with your stepfather.  These importations were as follows.  The first, 1.51 grams of heroin 48% purity; the second, 13.91 grams of cocaine 79% purity; the third, 1.97 grams of heroin 65% purity; the fourth, 1.02 grams of heroin 71% purity; the fifth paper tablets containing a psychedelic drug not commonly encountered in Jersey with a street value of £60 - £120 dimethoxyamphetamine; and finally 0.98 grams of heroin 27% purity.  The total value of the heroin and cocaine brought in this way came to several thousand pounds - with a street value in Jersey of between £7,363 and £7,966.  Although the drugs were imported for your personal use, the quantities were significant and any importation of Class A drugs, particularly drugs such as heroin and cocaine, is harmful to the community and serious and of course adds to the demand in the community and for importation of such drugs.

8.        In addition, you carried on offending and arranging importations notwithstanding your arrest and interview in September 2019.  You were arrested then and made "no comment" in relation to the intercepted postal packages referred to at Counts 1 to 5 and then proceeded to nonetheless go on to commit the offence at count 7 - importing more heroin.  On several occasions you used your stepfather's name for the purpose of addressing the packages which was unfair, as suspicion fell on him when he was entirely innocent of your offending. 

9.        We turn now to the main indictment.  Count 1 involves you Bisson on 28^th October, 2019 attempting to export the proceeds of crime from Jersey, namely £1,000 in an envelope.  When this sum was intercepted by Customs and Immigration, you having understood from your contacts it had not been delivered to the address in Liverpool where you expected it to arrive - you used an old mobile telephone to contact Jersey Post twice, gave a false name and falsely claimed that the parcel contained "brake hoses and instructions" worth £10 - accordingly lying as to the contents of the package.  In respect of this package, you admitted in interview the package was intended for a group to whom you owed a drugs debt.   

10.      Count 2 on the indictment is the principal count involving successful implementations executed by you Agathangelou, Bayliss and Bisson which were carried out on three occasions on 13^th November 2019, 4^th December 2019 and 22^nd January 2020. 

11.      As to the first, on 13^th November 2019, Agathangelou you arrived in Jersey on a flight from Gatwick.  You were only on the Island for a few hours before you flew back 

12.      In interview Agathangelou you admitted that you were paid £1,000 for this drug run.  You would conceal the heroin internally and then hand it over to Bisson at Burger King, St Helier.  You received £1,500 for the second importation and £1,000 for the third.  You voluntarily involved yourself in this offending and had no good reason for doing so.  Bisson you said to the police that you owed a significant drug debt to an individual who was based in London.  You said that that the debt would be reduced in exchange for undertaking tasks such as exporting cash and receiving drug importations.  You admitted that you met Agathangelou in Burger King on 13^th November 2019 and on the two subsequent occasions and on each occasion you received drugs from Agathangelou and delivered them to a male you have not named who lives apparently in St Ouen.  You subsequently paid Agathangelou with money you received from the same man.  You said that Bayliss, who was the driver, was aware of what had to be collected and would receive a couple of bags of heroin in return for arranging transport.  Bayliss, you agreed that you knew that Bisson was collecting heroin from Burger King and that you were to be paid in heroin.  You accepted that you drove Bisson to Burger King on 13^th November and 4^th December 2019 and received heroin on each occasion.  You said there were other occasions in which you had taken Bisson to St Brelade and he had collected heroin and again you had received heroin in payment.  You have been addicted to heroin since you were 21 and you also drove the car to the airport in relation to the money laundering count at Count 3.  Analysis of the phone records between you Bayliss and you Bisson showed various communications relating to the sourcing and supply of controlled drugs and the collection of funds. 

13.      As to the importation on 4^th  December 2019, again Agathangelou you arrived from Gatwick and again you only came for 1 day.  Again, you went to Burger King, opening a blue rucksack, removing a red package from it and giving it to Bisson.  In return he provided you with a small white package which you placed into your rucksack which appears to have been the cash.  Shortly before this Bisson was seen in the presence of Bayliss, again the driver.

14.      On 22^nd January, 2020, Agathangelou you again landed from Gatwick.  Again, you went to Burger King.  Bayliss was observed collecting Bisson from an address in St Saviour.  Shortly thereafter, Bisson met Agathangelou in Burger King.  Agathangelou you went to the toilets presumably to retrieve the drugs that you had concealed internally and again, although not captured on the CCTV, you exchanged the drugs for cash.  Bisson you were arrested as you left Burger King, and on seeing an officer approaching you, you put the bag you had just received from Agathangelou in the bin.  This contained heroin with a weight of 255.41 grams.  So, this importation alone, and I emphasis alone, contained a substantial amount of heroin, with an average purity of 12% and a street value of between £51,000 and £102,000 or up to £255,000 if sold in smaller quantities. 

15.      The Crown cannot say what amount of heroin was imported on the first two importations, but we note Bisson that you have told the Probation Officer that the first importation involved an ounce of heroin and the second 125 grams.  

16.      Between the second and third importations on 19^th December 2019, you Bisson and Morgan were seen in a car belonging to Bayliss at the airport.  Bisson, you helped Morgan retrieve a black suitcase from the boot of the car which Morgan wheeled, followed by you, to the check-in desk.  Morgan lifted the suitcase onto the check-in belt, and you remained together in the departures hall and you both had tickets to fly to Gatwick.  As to the purpose of your visit, Bisson you ultimately told the police that you were going to deliver the suitcase to a man in East Croydon and your reward would be forgiveness of some of your drugs debt and Morgan would be paid.  When challenged, after the black suitcase had been searched by police officers in your presence, Morgan, you denied the suitcase was yours, claiming it belonged to a friend, which of course was not true.  Morgan you say you did not know what was in the suitcase and did not know that it had been checked-in under your name.  In fact, the suitcase contained £19,000 in cash, criminal property, and Count 3A represents the £1,104 in cash seized from Morgan's wallet which was also the proceeds of drug trafficking and attributable to you both as to two thirds to Morgan and one third to Bisson.  When you Morgan were arrested and interviewed in December 2019 you were again, unhelpful to the police, providing "no comment" answers to the majority of questions and denying ownership of the suitcase.  However, when you were interviewed again on 20^th February 2020 you said that you arrived at Bisson's house in the morning, you were given a suitcase and you were told that you were taking it to the UK.  You suspected it would contain cash and you said that you were due to receive heroin as payment for taking the suitcase to the UK.  You refused to provide your pin code or passwords to your mobile telephone or computers that were seized from you when you were arrested.  However, your bank statements showed when they were recovered that you had made 12 payments to Bisson, totalling £1,500 which you accepted was for the purchase of heroin.  Your computer was examined by the States of Jersey Police High Tech Crime Department and the Department noted that there were high levels of encryption present on your computer, as well as file wiping and deletion software.  Nonetheless officers were able to access a bitcoin wallet showing incoming and outgoing transactions around the dates of the six postal importations.  During the same interview you also admitted the offences on the second indictment - saying that the drugs were for your personal use. 

17.      Counts 4 and 5 relate on the main Indictment relate to you Bayliss.  Count 4 relates to the possession of a small amount of cannabis found in your vehicle on 22^nd January 2020 and Count 5 to a cannabis growing tent containing one plant discovered on the same day when your home was searched, together with various associated paraphernalia.  The plant had a potential yield of 56 grams of cannabis, with a street value of between £1,200 and £1,400.  In interview you admitted the plant was yours and you were growing the cannabis for your personal use. 

18.      Now, as all four of you all know, the maximum sentence for conspiring to supply a Class A drug is life imprisonment, which reflects the seriousness with which these offences are viewed. 

19.      In respect of the three of you concerned with the conspiracy count, the Crown has identified the starting point by reference to the weight of drugs imported in January 2020 only.  In some respect you are fortunate in that regard as were they to have included the additional amounts of drugs admitted to have been imported by Bisson then the starting point in your cases would have been 14 years' imprisonment.  In Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373, for an importation of between 250 and 400 grams of heroin the guideline starting point is between11 to 14 years' imprisonment.

20.      In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the Crown and it has not be challenged on your behalves, the starting point in relation to Count 2 of the Indictment is 11 years for you Agathangelou and Bayliss and for you Bisson, who was clearly the primer Jersey mover in relation to this conspiracy, in contact with the English suppliers and responsible for return of the profits, a starting point of 12 years. 

21.      As to the counts of money laundering in which you Bisson and Morgan were involved, money laundering is a very serious offence.  The maximum sentence is 14 years' imprisonment and we repeat what was said by the Royal Court in AG -v- Brennan [2016] JRC 234.

"Unlawful activity such as, for example, dealing in drugs, cannot thrive unless individuals are prepared to assist in channelling the criminal process of that conduct back to those who engage in it." 

22.      In this case Bisson, you were aware of what you were exporting to the UK and why.  Morgan, you knew that the bag contained cash and you knew that it was the proceeds of crime, namely drug trafficking.  We have considered the authorities put before us including AG -v- Goodwin [2016] (2) JLR 220 and take the view that if either you Bisson or you Morgan were being sentenced for Count 3 alone, then the sentence on your guilty pleas would have been in the region of 2 years imprisonment, longer than the Crown suggest.  We have regard to the considerations identified by the Crown as drawn from the authority of AG v Goodwin and the principles, in so far as applicable to this case are as follows.

(i)        There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the sentence for the laundering offence and the predicate offence but where the predicate offence can be identified the appropriate sentence may be considered when evaluating the sentence for the laundering offence.  In this case the predicate offence was drug trafficking which of course is a serious offence.  

(ii)       The criminality in laundering is the assistance, support and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct.  Bisson's and Morgan's actions contributed to the ongoing supply and demand of controlled drugs within the Island.  Bisson organised the attempted removal and they were, the Crown say, proceeds of his crime.  It is said on your behalf Mr Bisson that it could have been the proceeds of another's crime.  For these purposes that does not assist you - these were in any event the proceeds of crime.  Morgan's role was to assist in escorting the cash out of the Island in a bag checked in under his name in exchange for a few bags of heroin and a trip to London paid for. 

(iii)      Regard should be had to the extent of the launders knowledge of the predicate offence; you were both aware of the fact that you were dealing with cash arising from the proceeds of crime and we note that lack of knowledge of the predicate offence is not a mitigating factor per AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A. 

(iv)      The amount of money laundered is a relevant factor, in this case we are concerned with £19,000 in cash which is a significant amount.

(v)       No distinction is to be drawn between the laundering of ones own proceeds of crime and the proceeds of crime committed by third parties

(vi)      Finally the Court should have regard to the duration and sophistication and scale of money laundering as relevant considerations, which we do in this case.

23.      In respect of the second indictment concerning you Morgan, we have had regard to the Rimmer guidelines.  This was an importation of heroin on four occasions totalling 5.483 grams with a street value of £5,500, together with the importation of 13.91 grams of cocaine at 79% purity with a value of between £1,680 to £2,100.  The cocaine was of a very high purity.  The Crown contend for an 8 year starting point.  The defence submitted this was too long having regard to the fact that these drugs were for your personal use and it is said that the Crown's reliance on the high purity is of limited relevance in view of the fact that these drugs were for your use and not to be supplied to others.  Having regard to the Rimmer guidelines and the particular banding we have identified that the starting point for you should be 7½ years' imprisonment on Count 2 and it is unchallenged that the starting point at Counts 1, 3, 4 and 7 in relation to the heroin offences should be 7 years' imprisonment.  We do not apply a "Valler" uplift (Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383) to any of the starting points as the quantities and the nature of the importation do not warrant it. 

24.      We have taken into account the guilty pleas entered by all of you and all that has been said on your behalf.  We have read all the reports and correspondence that has been provided to us.  Agathangelou we give credit for your previous good character.  We note what has been said and we have regard to the difficult upbringing you have had, and the fact that you gave a full account in interview.  We note you are assessed at being at a high risk of reconviction.  We accept that you regret what you did and, in your case, as in every case before the Court today, there are innocent victims, in your case your 14 year old son.  We note that you have taken exams in custody which is commendable, and we note that you may undertake this thinking skills programme which may assist you in custody.

25.      Mr Bayliss, we take into account what has been said in respect of your role as a driver.  We accept you were not the organiser and it is right that in certain respects your role could be equated with Miss Agathangelou's, the difference of course is that she is a women of good character and you have a very poor criminal record including serious offending involving heroin so you cannot expect the same credit beyond credit for your guilty plea that will accrue to your co-defendant.

26.      All the advocates in the case have urged upon us the matter of delay which we have taken into account to the extent that we can, but the delay in this case was not the fault of the Crown, simply a consequence principally of Mr Morgan exercising his right to contest the basis upon which he was likely to be sentenced.

27.      It is said in relation to Mr Bayliss that you should receive a full one third discount for your plea, which we accept, and we adjust the Crown's conclusions as you will hear in due course.  We take into account your remorse and we have read all the correspondence and we were very moved, in particular, by the letter that was written by your sister.

28.      Mr Bisson we accept that you should receive full credit for your guilty plea.  We accept in your case that you genuinely apologise for what you have done, that you wish never to appear before this Court again and you wish to take advantage of facilities that are offered at La Moye. 

29.      In relation to you Mr Morgan we fully accept that you were not a party to the conspiracy, and we accept your apology to the Court.  We are not persuaded that we can impose a non-custodial sentence on you today because these matters are simply too serious.  We note in your case the efforts you have made to look after your step father and again in relation to your case and others as we have said there are unfortunately innocent victims that will be hurt today but that is simply a consequence of the serious offending that all four of you involved yourselves involving these Class A drugs.  We have been encouraged by the references that we have read, particularly those who have spoken about your involvement and conversion to Christianity and we hope that you can carry on the good work that you have begun in custody and we take into account all the additional mitigation of which the Court is aware in your case. 

30.      At the end of the day heroin is a drug which blights and destroys lives and that must be reflected in the sentences that the Court imposes today. 

31.      Ms Agathangelou in relation to Count 2 on the Indictment you are sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment.

32.      Mr Bayliss, on Count 2 we sentence you to 7 years' imprisonment, and on Count 4, 1 week concurrent and on Count 5 1 month concurrent, making a total of 7 years' imprisonment. 

33.      Mr Bisson on Count 2 we sentence you to 8 years' imprisonment, on Count 1, 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent and on Count 3, 12 month's imprisonment, consecutive making a total of 9 years' imprisonment.

34.      Mr Morgan on the Second Indictment, Count 1, we sentence you to 3 years' imprisonment; Count 2, 3½ years concurrent; Count 3, 3 years concurrent; Count 4, 3 years, concurrent; Count 5, 3 months' concurrent; Count 6, 3 years, concurrent and Count 7, 3 years concurrent.  On the First Indictment, 12 months' imprisonment consecutive on Count 3, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent on Count 3A making a total of 4½ years' imprisonment.

35.      We make destruction and forfeiture orders in relation to the drugs in this case, the telephones and computers.

36.      We make the Confiscation Orders and certify the benefit in the sums notified to us, which we do not repeat.  They have been read out in relation to Ms Agathangelou, Mr Bisson and Mr Morgan.

37.      Can I say to all four of you it gives the Court no pleasure at all to impose these lengthy sentences on you all today, but Class A drugs, particularly heroin, ruin lives and to export the proceeds of drug offending are very serious and the Court has a duty to protect the people of Jersey from these dangerous and damaging drugs. 

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. 

AG -v- Brennan [2016] JRC 234. 

AG -v- Goodwin [2016] (2) JLR 220. 

AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A. 

Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383. 

AG v Turney [2016] JRC 175

AG v Adam [2015] JRC 215

AG v Thompson [2015] JRC 165

Shahnowaz v AG [2007] JLR 221

AG v Gaish [2006] JRC 109

Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626

AG v Howe [2020] JRC 268