Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Yeowart and Maidment [2022] JRC 027 (03 February 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_027.html
Cite as: [2022] JRC 027, [2022] JRC 27
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - Class A - importation.
|
Before : |
T. J. L Cocq, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden, Christensen and Le Cornu |
The Attorney General
-v-
Craig Patrick Yeowart
Darren Paul Maidment
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:
Craig Patrick Yeowart
|
1 count of: |
Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999. (Count 1). |
Age: 38.
Plea: Guilty.
At approximately 6:00 p.m. on 7th August 2021, the Defendants arrived at Elizabeth Terminal, having travelled from Portsmouth by ferry. They were stopped and spoken to by Customs Officers after they disembarked the ferry. Yeowart was driving a grey Kia Ceed, (DN64 ZMX) ("the car"). Maidment was sitting in the front passenger seat.
When asked about the purpose of their trip, the Defendants explained that they had come to Jersey for a 6-day holiday and intended to visit the "German Castle", relax and go fishing. They said they would be staying at the Apollo Hotel. When asked about their fishing plans, they said they planned to go fishing in St Clements for carp and also try some sea fishing.
The current prohibitions and restrictions in force in relation to controlled drugs were explained to the Defendants, who stated they had nothing to declare. Yeowart stated that he owned the car. The Defendants confirmed that they were aware of the contents of the vehicle and they were not carrying anything for anyone else.
The car was searched and Officers identified a small cut in the metal chassis under the offside rear seat. Upon closer examination, the Officers observed what appeared to be a blue plastic bag in the void behind the area which had been cut. The Defendants were arrested and cautioned on suspicion of being involved in the importation of a controlled drug. Their mobile phones were seized.
The search of the car continued. It was established that the cut in the chassis was in fact part of a locked access panel to a hidden void. The Officers eventually managed to locate a trigger switch which was hidden under the dashboard. Once a fuse, which had been spliced into the extra wiring found in the vehicle, was inserted into the empty slot on the fuse board, and the ignition key was turned to the second position, the trigger switch activated the lock to the access panel.
The Officers then examined the hidden void behind the access panel, where they found a blue plastic carrier bag. Inside the carrier bag was a plastic wrapped block containing white powder which field tested positive for the present of cocaine.
The block of white powder was submitted to the Official Analyst, who confirmed that it consisted of 997.9 grams of cocaine with a purity of 80%.
A Drug Trafficking Expert opined that the high purity cocaine seized in this case would have had a local wholesale value of £70,000 to £84,000 (approximately 35 ounces at £2,000-£2,400 per ounce), and a street value (without adulteration) of £150,000 - £200,000. However, if adulterated to 4-5 kilos of typical quality cocaine, then the potential wholesale value would have been £280,000 - £420,000, and the street value (of typical quality cocaine) £400,000 - £700,000.
Early guilty plea, cooperation with investigation.
Previous Convictions:
37 convictions, including 11 drug related convictions, comprising of offences of possession with intent to supply cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin and cannabis, and for possession of MDMA and cannabis.
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 16½ years' imprisonment. 12 years' imprisonment. |
Total: 12 years' imprisonment.
Declaration of Benefit sought in the sum of £4,840.
Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £560.33.
Default sentence sought in respect of the Confiscation Order of 6 months' imprisonment.
No Order sought for Forfeiture and destruction of the car.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 16 years' imprisonment. 11 years imprisonment. |
Total: 11 years' imprisonment.
Declaration of Benefit ordered in the sum of £4,840.
Confiscation Order made in the sum of £560.33.
Default sentence made in respect of the Confiscation Order of 6 months' imprisonment.
No order made for the forfeiture and destruction of the car.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Darren Paul Maidment
|
1 count of: |
Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999. (Count 1). |
Age: 36.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See above.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea.
Previous Convictions:
33 convictions, including 7 drug related convictions comprising of offences of possession with intent to supply heroin possession of cocaine, MDMA and cannabis.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 16½ years' imprisonment. 12 years' imprisonment. |
Total: 12 years' imprisonment.
No Costs order sought.
No order sought for the forfeiture and destruction of the car.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 16 years imprisonment. 11 years imprisonment. |
Total: 11 years' imprisonment.
No order made for the forfeiture and destruction of the car.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate L. Sette, for the defendant Yeowart.
Advocate A. M. Harrison, for the defendant Maidment.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced today for your parts in the importation of nearly a kilogram of cocaine on 7th August 2021. The drugs had a street value of up to £700,000 and they were concealed in the chassis of a car which you brought into Jersey on the ferry.
2. The facts have been referred to in the Crown's summary of facts and we do not need to go into them into any great detail. When questioned by Customs Officers you said, you had come to Jersey on a six day holiday to visit something you described as the German Castle, and to go fishing. The car was searched and a sophisticated concealment system was discovered with a trigger switch and concealed within was a blue plastic carrier bag, the block containing white powder which tested positive for cocaine. The powder has a high purity of some 80% and the evidence from the expert was that this purity of cocaine would likely have been highly adulterated to around 20% of its original purity and that the kilo would have a wholesale value of between £280,000 to £420,000 and a street value of between £400,00 and £700,000.
3. You were both interviewed with you Yeowart, indicating that you had accumulated approximately £9,000 of debt and were given the opportunity by a criminal gang based in Liverpool to make money from the importation. You were to be paid £1,000 on successful delivery and a further £1,000 on your return. You said that you thought that the drugs were cannabis and not cocaine.
4. You Maidment, continued with your story that you intended to holiday and to go fishing, but began to give no comment interviews when challenged on your finances. It is clear that you were both in contact by telephone with the criminal gang in the United Kingdom.
5. On any analysis this was therefore, a very substantial importation with an element of sophistication, in that a very careful and sophisticated method of concealment had been employed.
6. The Crown has of course drawn our attention to the well-known case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. Given the size of the importation and the purity, the guidelines indicate as you have heard a starting point of 14 years' imprisonment and upwards. The Crown accepts as do we, that you were couriers for a United Kingdom based criminal gang. As this Court has said many times in the past the role of a courier is an essential stage in the drugs trade, and it is clear that you each played a significant part as couriers. Adopting the principles set out in Rimmer v AG, given the purity we agree it is appropriate to adopt a higher starting point than that of 14 years.
7. Yeowart, you have a significant number of previous convictions including those for drugs. They include possession with intent to supply cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin and cannabis and possession of MDMA and cannabis. Your last conviction was in 2019 in connection with drugs.
8. You Maidment also have a significant number of previous convictions with seven drugs related offences. They include possession with intent to supply heroin and possession of cocaine, MDMA and cannabis. Your most recent conviction in connection with drugs was in March of 2020 for simple possession of cannabis.
9. We note that you have both entered guilty pleas, and whilst the evidence against you was strong and pleas might have been considered on that analysis to be inevitable, they are nonetheless of significant value and are to be encouraged and you will be afforded an appropriate discount for those pleas.
10. Yeowart, in your interview you suggested that you thought you were importing cannabis. You have heard what the Crown said about that, which reflects accurately the approach of the Courts. There is no mitigation for importing one kind of illegal drug under the misapprehension that you were importing an illegal but different and lesser class of drug.
11. You are both assessed being at high risk of re-conviction and we note that you have expressed remorse and regret. We note the other mitigation personal to each of you and in particular, we note letters and references provided for you, Yeowart.
12. In conclusion, we firstly deal with the question of confiscation. For Yeowart, we make the declaration of benefit sought by the Attorney General which is has not being disputed or opposed. We make a confiscation order in the sum £560.33 with a default sentence of 6 months, as requested.
13. Turning to the matter of sentence. We think the appropriate starting point is somewhat less than that asked for by the Crown and we think it should be one of sixteen years. Taking the available mitigation into account we impose the following sentence.
(i) Yeowart you are sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment.
(ii) Maidment you are also to be sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment.
14. We make an order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, but we make no order in respect of the motor vehicle for the reasons explained by the Crown.
Authorities
Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.
AG v Rice [2018] JRC 230B.