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 Dang [2022] JRC 251 (14 November 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2022/2022_251.html
Cite as: [2022] JRC 251
[New search] [Help]
Superior number sentencing - importation of Class A drugs, possession of criminal property
|
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Crill, Cornish, Le Heuzé, Thomas and Blampied. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Dominic Jack Tam Ngoc Dang
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court following a guilty plea to the following charges:
|
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). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 2). |
Age: 20.
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
On 7th September 2022, the defendant was stopped and questioned by customs officers while passing through the baggage reclaim area at Jersey Airport. The defendant had travelled alone on a flight from Liverpool. During questioning, the defendant stated that he was visiting his grandparents in Jersey but could not provide any other details than to say they lived in St Clement. He explained his sister booked his flights, and he did not have a return flight booked. Positive ion scans for cocaine and carfentanil were obtained from his belongings, and the defendant admitted to using cocaine earlier that week.
The defendant confirmed he was a brick layer and produced a quantity of cash amounting to £731.31 (Count 2).
The defendant was arrested and strip searched, but nothing was found on his person. He was taken to the Jersey General Hospital and an X-ray confirmed he had several suspicious packages concealed internally. He was escorted back to the Customs Custody Suite where he subsequently produced 97.87 grams of cocaine with an average purity of 62% (Count 1).
In interview, the defendant admitted to lying about having grandparents living in Jersey, but confirmed his sister booked his flights as he had forgotten the password to his bank card, and that she was not involved in the importation in any way. He stated the drugs were given to him by an unnamed individual at his home address in Liverpool the day before his travel, that the drugs were pre-wrapped, and he was aware the contents were cocaine. In respect of the seized monies, he claimed £50 was given to him by the unnamed individual in Liverpool to get a taxi once he was in Jersey, and the remainder of the cash was his savings. He stated he had a gambling problem and was £2,000 - £3,000 in debt. He said he was not getting paid for the importation, but his gambling debt would be settled or part settled.
An expert report was compiled and opined that if the drugs were sold at the local street market price, they would have a value between £12,000 and £22,000.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas (however all but inevitable in the circumstances), cooperative in interview, provided PIN to mobile phone, benefit of youth.
Previous Convictions:
Previous convictions for four offences comprising of two drugs offences and one offence for facilitating the acquisition or acquiring or possessing criminal property (convicted in May 2022 - sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment suspended). The defendant also has a conviction for failing to surrender to custody in February 2022.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 10 years' youth detention. 6½ years youth detention. |
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 2 years' youth detention. 1 year and 4 months' youth detention. |
Total: 6½ years' youth detention.
Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £731.31.
Confiscation order sought in the sum of £731.31.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and defendant's iPhone granted.
C. L. G. Carvalho, Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. C. L. Morley-Kirk for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced today for importing just under 100 grams of cocaine on the 7th September this year, which you concealed internally whilst travelling to the island on a flight from Liverpool. You are also to be sentenced for being in possession of criminal property, £731.31 in cash, on the same occasion.
2. The facts have fully referred to by the Crown but in brief you were stopped on that date whilst arriving from Liverpool Airport by officers of the Customs and Immigration Department. You claimed you were travelling to visit your Grandparents but could not provide details of their address other than saying that they lived in St Clement. You were searched and ion scans were taken which produced positive readings for cocaine and carfentanil. You gave other information relating to family members and friends supposedly in Jersey and you produced the cash that we have just mentioned.
3. As a result of the suspicions of the officers you were detained for search of the person but nothing was recovered. You were then arrested and taken to the Customs custody suite. You provided the PIN number for your phone. An x-ray disclosed that you were carrying packages internally and when those packages were produced they contained the cocaine. In interview you admitted that the purpose of the trip was to bring drugs into Jersey, you were to contact an individual who you knew as John, but said that you did not know him and did not provide his phone number. You admitted lying in your answers to the customs officers, you indicated the drugs had been given to you at your home address in Liverpool by someone you did not know and you knew the drugs to be cocaine. You signed a bank disclosure authority.
4. An estimate of the value of the drugs is that they have a street value of £120 to £220 per gram. Because it is of quite high purity, if it was sold at street level it would be valued between £12,000 and £22,000 if unadulterated, and if adulterated or cut to two times its original weight and sold in single gram units, the street value would range between £24,000 and £44,000.
5. The Crown has put before us the case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 and that indicates a starting point of 9 to 11 years' imprisonment for quantities of 50 to 100 grams. In this case you imported 97.87 grams of cocaine with an average purity of 62% and this will place this case towards the top end of the sentencing bracket identified in Rimmer. Once the bracket has been identified the starting point is determined by reference both to the weight of the drugs and your role and involvement as the main factors. In terms of starting point we note and agree the Crowns analysis, and its characterisation of you as a trusted drugs courier with a relatively straightforward role. In our view the correct starting point is 10 years.
6. With regard to possession of criminal property under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 in AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165, the principles were considered and were set out by the Superior Number:
"(i) There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the sentence for the laundering offence and the original antecedent offence. Where, however, the particular antecedent offence can be identified, some regard will be had to the appropriate sentence for that offence when considering the appropriate sentence for the laundering offence.
(ii) The criminality in laundering is the assistance, support and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct.
(iii) Regard should be had to the extent of the launderer's knowledge of the antecedent offence.
(iv) The amount of money laundered is a relevant factor."
7. The predicate offence in this case is of course drug trafficking, rightly characterised as a harmful activity attracting substantial custodial sentences. The dealing with the cash obtained from drug dealing is also a service to drug dealers and enables the trade to continue. It is clear from your admissions in interview and indeed from your guilty pleas, that you knew or suspected the cash was obtained from criminal conduct. The amount involved was not particularly large and although we accept that your role was significant, the overall importation, it was relatively unsophisticated.
8. We have, of course, considered the example cases put before us and we should say we agree that the correct starting point is one of 2 years'. The provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 apply in your case. You have previous convictions for similar offences and you also have a history of non-compliance with Community Orders. You have been given opportunities and chances to turn your life around in the past. This is serious offending and in all the circumstances we take the view, and you do not dispute it, that a custodial sentence is inevitable. You do have mitigation available to you. You entered a guilty plea at the first appearance, although as the Crown suggests, a conviction would have been all but inevitable given your internal concealment.
9. With regard to the deduction appropriate for a guilty plea in these circumstances, we take the view that the one third allowed for by the Crown is generous and we will take that generosity into account when dealing with the other deductions appropriate for mitigation. You are assessed at a high risk of reconviction within a 12 month period.
10. With regard to the confiscation, you do not oppose what is asked for by the Crown and we make a declaration that you have benefitted in the sum of £731.31 and make a Confiscation Order in the same sum.
11. Turning now to sentence, as we have said we took the view that the deduction allowed for the guilty plea was generous in the case and that as a result the Crown got the sentence correct. With regard to Count 1 you are sentenced to 6½ years' youth detention. With regard to Count 2 you are sentenced to 1 year 4 months' youth detention, concurrent, making a total of 6½ years youth detention.
12. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the iPhone.
Authorities
Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014
AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A
Carter v AG (CA, 28 September 1994, unreported)