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 Letertre [2022] JRC 167 (08 August 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_167.html
Cite as: [2022] JRC 167
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - importation - drugs - Class A.
|
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Crill, Christensen, Dulake, Austin-Vautier and Hughes. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Anne-Solene Letertre
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge
|
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: 39.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On Saturday 23rd April 2022, Customs and Immigration Officers stopped the Defendant after she arrived from St Malo on the Condor Voyager. She was driving a Citroen Xsara with a French registration. On being questioned about her travel to Jersey, the Defendant told the officers that she was on a day trip to drop off some 'materials' to someone. She stated that she did not know the name of the person she was supposed to meet but had a Jersey contact number for them (which she provided to the officers). She explained that she had been asked by a friend in France to bring the materials over to Jersey. This person had put the materials into the boot of her car and had paid for her travel. An officer called the mobile number provided by the Defendant and when the call was answered they asked to speak to the person, at which point the call disconnected.
The Defendant was asked where the materials were, and she directed officers to the boot of the car. Officers found a quantity of used welding equipment and an old dry powder fire extinguisher. The Defendant appeared visibly nervous during the search.
On closer examination of the fire extinguisher, the officers noticed that it appeared to have been rewelded at the base and sprayed white to conceal the welded area. The extinguisher was opened and a vacuum sealed bag containing 498.54 grams of cocaine (with a purity of 70%) was found within the extinguisher.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, albeit not on first appearance.
Previous Convictions:
French convictions for driving offences, but no previous drug-related convictions.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 15 years. 10½ years' imprisonment. |
Declaration of benefit in the sum of €300 and a confiscation order in the sum of €160 sought.
Recommendation for deportation sought.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 14 years. 8 years' imprisonment. |
Declaration of benefit in the sum of €300 and a confiscation order in the sum of €160 made.
Recommendation for deportation made.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced today for the importation of ½ kilogram of high purity cocaine into the Island on 23rd April 2022. As we have heard from the Crown, the drugs were concealed in a fire extinguisher in the boot of a car which you brought to Jersey on the ferry.
2. You had been asked to bring in these drugs and although you originally claimed that you were not aware that you were bringing in unlawful drugs, you have subsequently accepted that you knowingly did so in the hope of financial reward of some €5,000, possibly in part repayment of drugs debts.
3. The quantity of drugs involved was some 498.54 grams of cocaine with a purity of 70%. Expert evidence before us indicates that this is a high level of purity which if unadulterated at street level would be worth between £80,000 and £110,000, but if adulterated to typical street level the bulk would be increased to between 4 and 5 kilos and be worth £120,000 and £225,000.
4. You initially pleaded not guilty but then pleaded guilty at your first appearance before this Court. You have maintained that plea and accordingly are entitled to a discount to reflect that guilty plea. We note what the Crown has said, and the cases put before us, and we observe that were as customarily a guilty plea would attract a one-third discount, that deduction depends entirely on the circumstances of the case and it is frequently the position that less of a discount will be made when the conviction would be almost inevitable.
5. However, we do not consider that a conviction in this case would have been almost inevitable, and we treat your plea as of real value and meriting a full one-third discount.
6. We note that you have no previous convictions concerning drugs and we treat you in effect as a first offender for these purposes. We have carefully read the reports prepared in this case and indeed all of the documentation including your letter of remorse and the references provided on your behalf. We can see from your own letter to us that both your life has had many challenges and the consequences of your imprisonment will prejudice not only you but vulnerable members of your family. As this Court has said on many occasions, the consequences on members of the family of a conviction for the importation of drugs is something that the offender should have thought about in advance and is not mitigation that is appropriate to ask the Court to take into account, other than perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances.
7. We accept that there is further mitigation as referred to by your counsel and otherwise which we do not need to set out in full, but we have taken it fully into account. We treat all cases on their own merits as they all have unique factors and circumstances that often cannot be fully deployed in the written judgments of the Court that accompanies them.
8. Turning to the matter of confiscation which you do not oppose, we make the declaration of benefit in the sum of €300 and it appears to us to be appropriate to make an order for confiscation in the sum of €160.
9. Turning to the sentence, the Crown has placed before us the correct guideline case, namely Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 in which a starting point of 14 years' imprisonment and above for quantities of 400 grams or more of Class A drugs was laid down. The amount of drugs in this case was more than 400 grams, and given the purity this places the case within the upper sentencing bracket.
10. Having identified the bracket, in our view, in the round, in identifying your own level of involvement we do not consider it necessary to raise the starting point beyond 14 years. Whereas we do not dispute the analysis of the Crown, we do not think that sufficient allowance has been made for the reports and letters and other documents before us, including your references and the mitigation of your guilty plea which, as we have said, merits a full one third discount has been made. In our view you are entitled to a larger discount by way of mitigation. You are sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.
11. We turn now to the question of deportation and applying the principles of Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462, we are satisfied that your continued presence is detrimental to the Island and that, as a French national with no ties to the Island, your deportation will have no detrimental effect on the human rights of innocent third parties.
12. We note that you have indicated that you wish to return to France to serve your sentence and accordingly we see no reason not to recommend your deportation which accordingly we do.
13. No order for forfeiture and destruction of the motor vehicle made.
14. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs in this case.
15. That is the sentence of the Court.
Authorities
Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.
AG v O'Brien [2021] (2) JLR N 4
Carter v AG [1994] JRC 192.