Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - Class B - possession - supply - threatening conduct

[2022]JRC283

Royal Court

(Samedi)

15 December 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

Ian Stuart Richomme

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction on Count 1 of the First Indictment and guilty pleas to the charges on the Third Indictment:

First Indictment

Third Indictment

Age:  28

Plea: Not guilty to the First Indictment.  Guilty to Third Indictment.

Details of Offence:

First indictment

The Defendant was convicted by the Inferior Number, after a two-day trial, of possession of 6.394 kilograms of cannabis with intent to supply it to another or others. 

At approximately 10.15pm on 3 February 2022, the Defendant was in the area of Park Stores asking members of the public where his bag was.  He spoke to a police officer and was "very stressed, very worried about the rucksack".  He said that he had his bag when he went inside the shop but CCTV showed that he did not.  When the Defendant was shown this, he left the area.

At approximately 7am the following morning, a blue Nike sports bag was found on a path outside Plat Douet Primary School by staff.  On looking inside, they saw the bag contained packages of suspected controlled drugs and the Police were called.  The bag contained a plastic bag containing clothes, multiple wrapped packages of cannabis resin (6075g) and herbal cannabis (347g), a massage gun, cans of beer, and some loose pieces of plastic.  Two fingerprints were recovered from a piece of plastic at the bottom of the bag and the massage gun, both matching those of the Defendant.

The Crown did not have a positive case as to the Defendant's role; however, it was not in dispute that the drugs involved were a commercial quantity.

In interview, the Defendant claimed to have found the bag on the street, put his belongings inside without looking at the contents and then become suspicious and thrown the bag and its contents (including his own belongings) away.  He gave evidence at trial which was inconsistent in its detail with the account given in interview.  He denied having knowledge of the drugs when he picked up the bag.  He said he was "completely off his head" at the time.

Third Indictment

At approximately 11.30pm on 10 July 2022, whilst on Royal Court bail for the cannabis offence, the Defendant was refused entry to the Havana Club.  He became aggressive and verbally abusive to the doorman a "little fat prick", "a rat", "pussy" and referring to the doorman having previously been "knocked out".  The Defendant was removed from the area by his girlfriend.

On 12 August 2022, whilst still on Royal Court bail, the Defendant was informed that his girlfriend's patio doors had been smashed.  At approximately 7.30pm, the girlfriend's neighbour heard the Defendant exit the house, shouting.  A passer-by also heard the Defendant shouting and sounding angry.  The Defendant, who was on the telephone could be heard making comments that were both abusive and explicitly threatening - including threats regarding bombs, apparent threats of sexual assault, threats of physical violence, and unpleasant personal abuse.  At approximately 8pm, the Defendant was seen at a petrol station buying a jerry can with petrol inside it.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea entered at the earliest opportunity in relation to Count 1 on the Third indictment.  A guilty plea was entered in relation to Count 2 on the Third Indictment but not at the earliest opportunity, requiring the Crown to serve the full prosecution case.  The Defendant has no previous convictions for drug trafficking but has a poor record for other offences.  The reports showed he had a very difficult background.  He was at very high risk of reconviction.

Previous Convictions:

Previous convictions for 41 offences, including for possession of cannabis in 2010, public order and violence offences between 2009 and 2021.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Third Indictment

Total:  4 years and 23 weeks' imprisonment. 

Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £52,800.

Confiscation order sought in the nominal sum of £1 sought.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Third Indictment

Total:  4 years and 21 weeks' imprisonment. 

Declaration of benefit made in the sum of £52,800.

Confiscation order made in the nominal sum of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. B. Wauchope for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        We will give reasons in writing for the sentence that we are about to impose in due course so that you fully understand why it is that the Jurats have chosen the sentence that they have in your case.

2.        We have listened with care to all that your counsel has said so well on your behalf but these were serious offences and only a custodial sentence is warranted.  We hope that you continue to make progress, as you have, in custody and that you put this behind you when you are ultimately released. 

3.        We have accepted the Crown's starting point on the First Indictment of 4½ years' imprisonment and the sentence we impose on that indictment is 4 years and 13 weeks' imprisonment.

4.        On the Third Indictment we have agreed with the Crown that the sentences must be concurrent with each other but consecutive with the sentences on the First Indictment and in relation to those offences, on the first offence, an offence on bail on 10 July 2022 of threatening and abusive behaviour we impose a sentence of 4 weeks imprisonment and in relation to the second offence, again an offence on bail on 12 August 2022 we reduce the Crown's conclusions slightly and impose a sentence of 8 weeks' imprisonment, making a total of 4 years and 21 weeks' imprisonment. 

5.        We have determined that you have benefited from the criminal conduct in the sum of £52,800.00 and make a confiscation order in the nominal sum of £1.

6.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

AG v Richomme [2017] JRC 109.

Bonnar v AG [2001] JLR 626.

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373.

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136.