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 Boschat [2023] JRC 007 (13 January 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2023/2023_007.html
Cite as: [2023] JRC 007, [2023] JRC 7
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - Class B - cash seizure
|
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Dulake and Opfermann |
The Attorney General
-v-
Simon Guy Boschat
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Possession or control of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2). |
|
1 count of: |
Failing to comply with a notice requiring the disclosure of a key, contrary to Article 42F(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 (Count 3). |
Age: 33.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Police executed a search warrant at Jobe Le Jehan's address, his mobile phone was seized and examination of the mobile phone showed that the Defendant had been concerned in the supply of cannabis for approximately one year.
A drug expert opined that the Defendant was involved in the Island's drug supply at a mid-level with the Defendant being an upstream supplier for Le Jehan. The total amount of cannabis the Defendant was concerned in supplying over this 12-month period was approximately 955 grams, being 455 grams that DC Morris states was likely supplied and 500 grams that was agreed to be supplied (Count 2).
The Defendant was arrested and interviewed and refused to give his access code for his iPhone (Count 3).
On receipt of the Defendant's bank statements, these were reviewed and transactions of interest were highlighted. A financial report has been completed in relation to the Defendant's bank accounts. The report highlights that in the 27-month period, the Defendant could have earned £19,000 from the sale of cannabis (Count 1)
Details of Mitigation:
The Defendant has the benefit of an early guilty plea to Count 3, which he entered at his first appearance in the Magistrate's Court. He then entered guilty pleas to Counts 1 & 2 at Indictment once he had obtained legal representation and therefore is not entitled to full credit for his pleas to Counts 1 & 2.
Previous Convictions:
The Defendant has convictions for forty-three offences, including multiple convictions for possession of drugs (most recently in 2013 for cannabis).
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
17 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
17 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1. |
|
Count 3: |
9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1. |
Total: 2 years and 2 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of mobile phone sought.
Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £19,000 and Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
18 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
18 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1. |
|
Count 3: |
9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1. |
Total: 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of mobile phone ordered.
Declaration of benefit certified in the sum of £19,000 and Confiscation Order ordered in the nominal sum of £1.
S. Crowder Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate N. B. R. Mière for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. Simon Boschat, you are 33 years old. Between April 2020 and February 2021, you supplied another man, who has since been sentenced by this Court, with substantial amounts of cannabis and on one occasion agreed to supply him with half a kilogram. In total you supplied, or agreed to supply, at least a kilogram of cannabis. You supplied the cannabis at various prices, often £15 per gram, so that you could make a profit on the supplies.
2. In one message, which we do not hold against you, you boasted that you had in fact been supplying cannabis for several years. You gave advice to the person you were supplying as to how to maximise his profits from the drugs you were distributing to him. You played a crucial role in the chain of supply and without you and people like you the illegal trade in drugs like cannabis would not be able to flourish.
3. The minimum street value of the cannabis you supplied or agreed to supply is in excess of £23,000 and you were, on the evidence that we have seen, dealing in order to supplement your other income from legitimate sources. When you were arrested, you gave the police little assistance and, in particular, you refused to provide access to your iPhone, even when served with a notice requiring you to do so. You deliberately refused to provide your PIN number and the Court will in this case and most cases draw the inference that that was solely to prevent the police of learning of your criminal conduct which, in fact, was proved by the download from a telephone belonging to the person that you were supplying.
4. Count 1 on the Indictment represents the £19,000, or thereabouts that you received from your criminal conduct and we have had regard to the Crown's conclusions and their reference to the factors set out in AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 and agree with that analysis as does your counsel today.
5. We note that Mr Le Jehan, whom you supplied, was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment for offences relating to the supply of cannabis and the possession of criminal property. The offences he committed were, in many respects, less serious than those that you face today. He was lower down the chain of supply and the criminal property he possessed was far less and we note that he co-operated with the police, providing them with his PIN number.
6. You supplied cannabis on a commercial basis over a long period and did not assist the authorities, with the exception of entering your guilty pleas.
7. You receive full credit for your plea to Count 3 which you entered before the Magistrate at the end of September last year. Count 3 is the offence of failing to comply with a notice requiring disclosure of a key. You did not enter pleas in respect of Counts 1 and 2 on the Indictment before the Magistrate and to receive full credit guilty pleas must be entered in the Magistrate's Court, save in exceptional circumstances.
8. It is said that you were unrepresented before the Magistrate, which is right, but you had been charged with these offences three weeks before and had not in that period obtained legal advice. It was referenced in mitigation on your behalf to a QR code at the Magistrate's Court not working but you had three weeks in which to obtain legal advice, and had you done so you would have known, if you did not know, that relevant prosecution papers would have been available to you or your Advocate from the Criminal Justice Unit at the police station including, we are told, nine statements of evidence, 12 exhibits, the charge sheet, the police report and your interview. In any event these were not complicated offences. You knew when you were charged that you were guilty of having in your possession criminal property, as alleged, and you knew that you had been dealing in cannabis, as alleged, and indeed these were identical offences to those of which Mr Le Jehan was convicted and to which your counsel has said we should pay close attention today.
9. We agree that in relation to the offence of not supplying your PIN, there must be a consecutive sentence and in all but the most exceptional circumstances, a consecutive custodial sentence will be passed for such an offence.
10. You have a bad record and you are at high risk of re-conviction, according to the author of the Pre-Sentence Report.
11. We have considered the letters; we have considered the letter from you; the other references and we are impressed and pleased to see that a job with be available to you on your release from custody.
12. In relation to starting points we broadly agree with the Crown's assessment of the starting point at Count 2. In relation to Count 1 we think arguably that the starting point might have been significantly higher and we see from the case of AG v Davies [2022] JRC 107 that the sum of £23,000 criminal property led to the Court proceeding on the basis of a staring point well in excess of 3 years.
13. The sentences we impose are as follows:-
(i) Count 1, 18 months' imprisonment
(ii) Count 2, 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent
(iii) Count 3, 9 months' imprisonment, consecutive
making a total of 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment. We hope, in accordance with your letter, that the Court will not see you again.
14. We make the Confiscation Order sought.
15. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the mobile telephone.
Authorities
AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A
AG v Thurban et al [2020] JRC 212
AG v Bennett [2021] JRC 261
AG v Ferguson, Morgan and Saunders [2022] JRC102