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 Silbourne [2022] JRC 209 (11 October 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_209.html
Cite as: [2022] JRC 209
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A
|
Before : |
Sir William Bailhache, Commissioner, and Jurats Crill, Dulake, Hughes, Cornish and Blampied |
The Attorney General
-v-
Elijah Eric Silbourne
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 22nd July, 2022, 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: 20.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 1st June 2022, the defendant and his partner were stopped by Customs Officers at Elizabeth Terminal having travelled from Poole by ferry with his car. When questioned, the defendant told officers that he had booked their travel the previous night. After the current prohibitions and restrictions in force relating to controlled drugs were explained to the defendant, he stated that he had nothing to declare. The couple confirmed they were aware of the contents of the car and had packed it themselves.
The car was searched and, within the void where a spare wheel would be stored, officers located a plastic bag containing a brown taped package.
The package was analysed and it contained white powder confirmed to consist of 999.98 grams of cocaine with a purity of 75%.
The defendant provided "no comment" answers in his first interview. In his second interview he admitted knowledge of the commodity and quantity of the importation. He stated that he initially refused to carry out the importation, but he later agreed in order to reduce a drug debt.
Details of Mitigation:
Valuable guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, no previous convictions, youth and co-operation with the authorities.
Defendant named individuals involved in the importation and was willing to have it stated in open court.
Previous Convictions:
No previous convictions.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 16 years. 9 years' imprisonment. |
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Confiscation adjourned.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 16 years. 6 years' youth detention. |
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
Ms C. L. G. Carvalho, Crown Advocate.
Advocate N. B. R. Mière for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. Mr Silbourne you are here to be sentenced on a count of being knowingly concerned in the importation of 1 Kilo or thereabouts of cocaine, which, as has been said, is a Class A drug, a pernicious drug which causes great damage in this community, and it is an offence which the Court treats very seriously. The seriousness of the offence is illustrated by the fact that the legislature has made a provision that the person who traffics in cocaine in this way is in theory liable to life imprisonment, and that does demonstrate just how serious this offence is.
2. The full reasons for our decision are going to be delivered later but we have decided that on this count you are to be sentenced to 6 years' youth detention. Briefly the reasons for doing so are that we have accepted a starting point of 16 years' custody, we have taken into account the various items of mitigation which your counsel has very fully put before us and arrived at a figure of 9 years' youth detention which we would have imposed but for your willingness to name your supplier in Court, and so we have allowed an additional, and we think properly significant discount of a further 3 years against the sentence which would have been imposed and that is why we have arrived at 6 years' youth detention, so you are sentenced to that.
3. I want to just add just a couple more words. You will have the opportunity in prison, in youth detention and we have not lost sight of the fact that you are to be sentenced under the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 and so we have considered that, and we have reached a sentence of detention because we think it is so serious that no other way of dealing with you is appropriate. You are going to spend some time in youth detention and then in prison which you can use profitably or not at your choice. We do urge you to take advantage of any psychological help that you can get in prison and in that context we authorise the release of Dr Boucher's report to the prison authorities in order to assist you. You can take the opportunity of extending your studies in prison and equipping yourself for what life will be like when you come out when things will be different and at that stage, assuming the usual discount for good behaviour in prison with 6 years youth detention leading to your exit in 4 years' time you will only be 24, you will have your whole life ahead of you. You can look at this sentence that is now being passed negatively or positively and we urge you to look at it positively. You will have the opportunity, as I say, of taking advantage of what the prison can offer, of starting afresh and equipping yourself for what can be a useful life in the community and as I say we urge you to take that approach to it.
4. We order the drugs be forfeited and destroyed.
5. Our full reasons for our decision of 6 years' youth detention are to be delivered in due course.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014.
AG v Yeowart and Maidment [2022] JRC 027.
AG v Thurban et al [2020] JRC 212.