Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - Class A

[2021]JRC093

Royal Court

(Samedi)

29 March 2021

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Crill, Olsen and Hughes

The Attorney General

-v-

Jade Victoria Bromley Bennett

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 22^nd January, 2021, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

2 counts of:	Being concerned in the supplying of, or in the making of an offer to supply, a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1 and Count 2).
1 count of:	Offering to supply a controlled drug to another contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3).  .

Age:  27. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On the evening of 15^th February, 2020, a man contacted the Police stating that he wanted to throw himself from the top of Minden Place car park.  Officers attended and the man was hospitalised from the effects of particularly strong MDMA powder supplied to him by the Defendant (Count 3).

 

The man subsequently provided bank statements, telephone messages and a detailed statement describing how he had been supplied with MDMA by the defendant since 2017, and that he had most recently met the defendant at Sand Street Car Park to buy the drugs from her.  He explained how the defendant would post stories and advertise the selling of MDMA powder and MDMA tablets on her Snapchat stories.

 

The defendant was arrested, her premises searched, and her mobile telephones examined.  CCTV of the exchange between the defendant and the male on the fifth floor of Sand Street Carpark was also obtained.

 

On examining the defendant's personal mobile telephone (iPhone XS Max), the Police identified tens of thousands of chats and messages with a large proportion of them referring to drug dealing.  It transpired that the defendant had been supplying various MDMA tablets and powder on a weekly basis for the previous 5 years (Counts 1 and 2).  In the Defendant's 'notes' section of her mobile telephone, were two "deal lists", one of which contained 30 names and a total figure of '3962' (£). The defendant's media files also showed a number of photographs of the drugs she had sold including Skypes, Lego's, Rolls Royce's and Dollars'.

 

The defendant's bank accounts were reviewed.  Two of her accounts held approximately £1,000, the third contained approximately £15,000.

 

In interview, the defendant answered no comment to the majority of questions put to her but accepted being a social user of ecstasy and that she earned approximately £2,000 a month from her wages as a barista.  She denied selling the male any drugs

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas and good character. 

Previous Convictions:

All local convictions are motoring related. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 8 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  5 years' imprisonment.

Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £23,277.00 and a Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £17,775.00.

Order sought for the forfeiture and destruction of the seized drugs and the defendant's personal mobile telephone (iPhone XS Max). 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment. 

Confiscation granted as per the Crown's conclusions.

The Court ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

The Court ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the Defendant's iPhone XS Max.  A destruction date of 31^st May 2021 was allowed in order for the Defendant to transfer (via the States of Jersey Police) her personal photographs from her mobile telephone to an external device.

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You appear to be sentenced for three serious offences today involving the supply of a Class A drug commonly known as ecstasy.  Count 1 relates to your supply of ecstasy powder to others over a 5 year period ending in February of 2020.  Count 2 relates to your supply of ecstasy tablets over the same period and Count 3 to your offer to supply drugs to a specific individual in February of last year.

2.        It was your offending in relation to Count 3 which led to the offences involving dealing ecstasy over a 5 year period coming to light.  On 15^th February, 2020 a man contacted the police to say he wanted to throw himself from the top of Minden Place Car Park.  He was hospitalised, in part from the effects of a particularly strong MDMA powder you supplied to him combined with alcohol he had taken, and he supplied the police with evidence showing that in fact you had been supplying him with ecstasy since 2017.  He purchased ecstasy from you on no less than 16 occasions, at a total of £1,660, and not only did you supply him with the drug at a cost of £70 on each occasion, using the social media platform Snapchat, you agreed that on 13^th February, 2020, you knew that it was relatively unadulterated ecstasy powder you were giving him because you said to him "be careful it's strong stuff"..  So, such was your experience in selling this Class A drug, you knew when you were selling drugs that were stronger than usual. 

3.        The police searched your home a week later and found various paraphernalia connected to drug trafficking; drugs, two sets of digital scales containing traces of ecstasy and cannabis and other items.  In your first interview with the police you said that you were a social user of ecstasy but you denied selling drugs to the man who wanted to throw himself from the top of the car park and, as we have said, was hospitalised partly in consequence of the drug you sold him.  You specifically denied any exchange of drugs for cash but CCTV footage was recovered showing that you, in effect, carried out that transaction at Sand Street Car Park on 14^th February, 2020, the day after the Snapchat agreement to sell the man drugs and the day before he said he wanted to throw himself from the roof of the car park.

4.        When you were shown this footage in a second interview you simply went "no comment".  By this time your mobile telephone had been analysed and showed that you had been actively selling ecstasy over a 5 year period.  Two dealer lists showed that more than 35 individuals were purchasing ecstasy from you.  You were selling on a weekly basis and you sold at least 10 different types of ecstasy tablets during the period.  Owing to your suggestion to various customers of yours that they move to Snapchat, where messages disappear after being sent, the true level of your dealing could not be established. 

5.        Police analysis shows that much of the money paid into your account, (there is no accounting in relation to the cash payments you received) can be associated with the price of ecstasy from time to time.  You received payments by direct transfer from your purchasers and the police calculated that during the 5 years in question at least £20,693 of unexplained funds passed through your accounts associated with dealing MDMA in powder and tablet form. 

6.        The police drugs expert described you as a "prolific dealer" which the Court accepts and, having been as generous to you as is possible on the evidence they have, the Crown has proceeded on the basis that you sold ecstasy in powder and tablet form in equal extent, selling 104 grams of ecstasy powder and 414 tablets during this period. 

7.        We have considered the amounts in this matter by weight and hade regard to the case of AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 027 and AG v Rimmer [2001] JLR 373, and accordingly we accept the starting points recommended by the Crown, namely as to Count 1, 9 years' imprisonment, Count 2, 8 years' imprisonment and Count 3, 7 years' imprisonment. 

8.        We give you full credit for your early guilty plea, your genuine remorse and all the other mitigation of which the Court is aware, and we treat you as a woman of good character.  We have regard to the letters and references from family and friends including your letter or remorse.  But this was, as we have said, dealing on a prolific sale.  We note from one text that you sent in 2016 that you said, "Andy is minted, I've sold him like 2 grand of drugs maybe more since the beginning of December".  It was clear that you are reasonably close to your dealers as you were able to readily source high purity drugs.  You were fully aware that anyone involving themselves in dealing Class A drugs is potentially causing harm to themselves and others and you accept that a custodial sentence is inevitable today.  We note that you will make maximum use of the resources that you will have access to in custody to enable you to put this matter to one side and live a lawful life when you are released.

9.        We have seen from the Probation Report and from what Advocate Bell has said on your behalf that you are a hard working young woman.  You spent 3½ years working for a local retail business.  You were promoted to a managerial role, and the Social Enquiry Report says you have a strong work ethic.  We note that you are still only 27 and you began this offending when you were a young woman of 21.  You gave the police access to your phone and your bank accounts and without this cooperation the prosecution could not have succeeded against you.  

10.      In view of those matters, and the other matters to which we have referred, we are able to slightly reduce the prosecution conclusions and accordingly in relation to Count 1, Count 2 and Count 3 we impose a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, to run currently making a total of 4 years.

11.      We have made the Benefit and Confiscation Orders sought by the Crown.

12.      We order that the drugs be destroyed.

13.      In relation to your iPhone we order that it be destroyed by 31^st May, 2021 in order to give you, through your advocate, time to ensure that your personal photographs may extracted from your mobile phone and if that requires the provision of any memory device such as a memory stick that should not be at the expense of the police but someone on your behalf may arrange for that to occur.

14.      Those are the orders that we make. 

Authorities

AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 027. 

AG v Rimmer [2001] JLR 373

McDonough v AG [1994] JLR Note 7a

Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626

AG v Antunes & Ors [2003] JRC 072

AG v Taylor [2019] (1) JLR Note 2

AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 022