Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Cooney and Reaney [2023] JRC 022 (10 February 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2023/2023_022.html
Cite as: [2023] JRC 22, [2023] JRC 022
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
Sir William Bailhache, Commissioner, and Jurats Christensen MBE, Le Heuzé, Opfermann, Entwistle and Blampied. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Sean Liam Cooney
And
Joseph John Reaney
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Sean Liam Cooney
|
Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement which they knew or suspected, facilitated, by any means, the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (count 1). |
Age: 29
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
Between 26 October 2021 to 15 December 2021, the Defendants were subject of a joint surveillance operation conducted by States of Jersey Police and Jersey Customs and Immigration Service.
On 27 October, Cooney made initial arrangements for the purchase of a Rib. The Rib was purchased on 28 October by a man purporting to be Liam La Long (who the Crown considers must have been Cooney), who met with the seller and paid £5,200 in cash for the Rib. Subsequent enquiries in relation to Liam Le Long/Liam La Long/Liam Long revealed that no records in relation to those names were held by: Andium Homes; Deputy Superintendent Registrar for Births, Marriages and Deaths; Jersey Passport Office; Social Security; Driver and Vehicle Standards Department. The Rib was subsequently stored at Houguemont Farm in St Martin.
In November 2021 surveillance officers observed the Rib being towed behind a BMW. Enquiries with DVS revealed that the registered owner of the BMW was an individual who had given the car to Cooney in September 2021, along with the log book, on the understanding that he would scrap the car for her. She was unaware the car was still in use.
At approximately 12:30pm on 11 December 2021, the Defendants were observed by surveillance officers at Little St Catherine's Slip. The BMW was reversed down the slipway to the water's edge. Officers observed Cooney attaching the Rib to the trailer and observed Reaney driving the BMW up the slipway.
On 14 December 2021, the Defendants went together to JJ Fox Trading at the La Rue des Pres trading estate. Reaney purchased vacuum sealable plastic bags using Cooney's Revolut banking card to pay.
At approximately 3am on 15 December 2021, surveillance officers observed the Defendants arrive at Little St. Catherine's slipway in the BMW. At approximately 3:20am, surveillance officers watched the Defendants board the Rib and manoeuvre it slowly past St Catherine's Breakwater heading east. It was dark, yet the navigation lights of the Rib were never switched on. At approximately 4am, surveillance officers observed the Rib return to the slipway. One of the Defendants got off the Rib and took a picnic cool box. The other Defendant manoeuvred the vessel away and secured it to a mooring before using a paddle board to reach the slipway. The navigation lights of the Rib remained switched off at all times. The Defendants then walked up the slipway towards the car park. As they approached the BMW, the surveillance officers revealed themselves and arrested them on suspicion of being concerned in the importation of controlled drugs.
The Defendants were searched. A key for the Rib and an iPhone were seized from Cooney's trouser pocket. Officers observed that he was wearing plastic latex gloves.
Reaney was not in possession of a mobile phone. However, he was carrying a picnic cool box. Officers looked inside the cool box and found a large quantity of cash separated into bundles in vacuum sealed plastic bags (of the type purchased by Reaney from JJ Fox the day prior). The Defendants were then further arrested on suspicion of money laundering. A total of £112,945 in cash was seized from the cool bag.
The mobile phone seized from Cooney's pocket was examined and found to contain messages exchanged with an associate at the material time. In the table below, the messages sent by contact 'Grenadelaucher' were sent by the user of the phone seized from Cooney. The messages sent by contact 'Davyboy' are attributed to an associate who appears to have had responsibility for taking delivery of the cash on the French coast. The messages were exchanged between 2am and 4am on 15 December 2021.
Details of Mitigation:
Late guilty plea, Court held not much additional mitigation available.
Previous Convictions:
34 previous convictions for offences including money laundering, drug trafficking and unlawful violence. His 2019 conviction concerned his involvement in the supply of cannabis (46 bars of cannabis resin), and the laundering of the proceeds of that criminal conduct (being £5,540 in cash).
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 6 years' imprisonment. 5 years' imprisonment. |
Forfeiture and destruction of the mobile phone seized from Cooney sought.
Confiscation not agreed by the Defence.
No order sought for the forfeiture and destruction of the Rib.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
Joseph John Reaney
|
1 count of: |
Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement which they knew or suspected, facilitated, by any means, the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (count 1). |
Age: 31
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
See Cooney above.
Details of Mitigation:
Early guilty plea, remorse and references before the Court.
Previous Convictions:
Four convictions for larceny which date back to 2016, but no previous convictions for drug trafficking or money laundering.
Conclusions:
|
Starting point 6 years' imprisonment. 3 years and 10 months' imprisonment. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1: Starting point 6 years' imprisonment. 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
No order made for the forfeiture and destruction of the Rib.
Disparity in sentence between Defendants due to late plea by Cooney and additional personal mitigation available for Reaney.
Crown Advocate M. R. Maletroit.
Advocate D. C. Robinson for Defendant Cooney.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Defendant Reaney.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. The Defendants are to be sentenced for their involvement in a money laundering arrangement which concerned them attempting to remove just under £113,000 in tainted cash from Jersey. It was their intention to remove the cash by boat and then hand it to criminal associates in France. Their plan failed because the vessel they acquired for the trip was unsuitable and they aborted their journey and returned to the shore where they were arrested, and the cash was seized.
2. As a first step they had needed to acquire a vessel and some six weeks before they were arrested, whilst they were together in Amsterdam, the Defendant Cooney sent a Facebook message to a member of the public who was advertising the sale of a Rib. The vendor confirmed that the boat was still available and there were a series of messages to the vendor from a person identifying themselves as Liam Le Long expressing interest in buying the Rib. In fact, on 28th October 2021.
3. On the 14th December 2021, Reaney and Cooney together went to JJ Fox where Reaney bought some vacuum sealable plastic bags. At approximately 3:00 am on the 15th December 2021 surveillance officers observed the Defendants arriving at St Catherine's slipway in a BMW which Cooney had earlier promised he would be taking to the dump. Cooney was observed reversing the BMW with the Rib attached to the trailer. They detached the Rib and Cooney drove the BMW back up the slipway into the carpark. At approximately 3:20 surveillance officers watched the Defendants board the Rib and manoeuvre it slowly passed St Catherine's breakwater heading East. It was of course dark, but the navigation lights of the Rib were never switched on.
4. At approximately 4:00am surveillance officers observed the Rib return to the slipway. One of the Defendants got off, took a picnic cool box, the other manoeuvred the vessel away, secured it to a mooring before using a paddle board to reach the slipway and the navigation lights had remained switched off at all times.
5. The Defendants were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. Cooney's mobile telephone was seized and disclosed that he had been in touch with criminal colleagues in France that morning with regard to the prospective arrival time. Reaney had in his possession a picnic cool box, inside were the plastic bags with nearly £113,000 in cash. We have gone into that detail because before us both counsel suggested that really their clients were the junior partner in the offending. This was done at more length by Advocate Robinson.
We have considered all that has been said to us. In our view they were jointly responsible for the attempted export of cash as indeed Mr Bell accepted when that question was put to him. Accordingly, we have determined to take the same starting point in relation to the offending. We have looked at previous cases which of course are not precedents in any normal sense, but the court does try to be consistent in the way it approaches these questions. We think the right starting point is 6 years' imprisonment. Advocate Bell relied upon the case of AG v Hole and Ors [2018] JRC 062A and urged us to the view that the right starting point should be 5 years, as indeed did Advocate Robinson. We do not think that is so. Apart from anything else the money laundering charge in Hole gave rise to a starting point of 6 years' and concerned a similar amount of money.
6. We also think it might be right to refer at this point to the comments of the Court in AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A where at paragraph 5 the Court said this:
"Money laundering of the proceeds of crime, in theory, carries a potential sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment. That reflects the seriousness with which the legislature in this Island treats this offence, and where the underlying offence was drug trafficking, as we think this was likely to have been, we take the view that it calls for an immediate custodial sentence except in the case of very small amounts of money or unusual personal mitigation."
This Court endorses the comments of the Inferior Number on that occasion.
7. Having taken a starting point of 6 years' we therefore look at the mitigation which is available to each of the Defendants. In the case of Mr Cooney, he has pleaded guilty, but the guilty plea came very late. The Crown had made preparations for trial, the guilty plea was, in the circumstances which have been described, we think, almost inevitable. We do not think that there was much by way of additional mitigation. He has previous convictions some of which are relevant. The Social Enquiry Report reveals him as being at a high risk of reoffending. We do not really get the impression that he accepts responsibility for what he has done, and we do not therefore think that there is much by way of mitigation to apply in his case. Indeed, two of the Jurats would have been inclined to impose a longer sentence than that which has been moved for by the Crown and that is why we have been considering this for such a long time. In the circumstances the majority of Jurats agree with the Crown and the sentence will be 5 years' imprisonment.
8. In the case of Mr Reaney, we think that he has greater mitigation. He does not have the same relevant convictions in his record. He did plead guilty at the earliest opportunity although again a guilty plea was inevitable and in our view the remorse which he has expressed and the references of support which he has are more obviously to his credit. In the circumstances we consider that we can allow a little more mitigation than the Crown has allowed, and the Court has arrived at a conclusion of 3 years' and 9 months' imprisonment in his case.
9. We also make an order for the confiscation and destruction of the telephone which was seized from Mr Cooney.
10. We have considered whether there is appropriate disparity between the sentences, given the joint starting point and the joint exercise involved. That is largely reflected by the lateness of the guilty plea entered by Mr Cooney, but is partly reflected also by the additional personal mitigation which is available to Mr Reaney. So, Mr Cooney you are sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. Mr Reaney, you are sentenced to 3 years' and 9 months' imprisonment.
11. Confiscation postponed to a Directions hearing on 13th March 2023 at 10:00am with a time estimate of 1 hour.
12. The defence are directed to respond to the Attorney General's statement by close of business on 27th February 2023.
Authorities
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.
Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001.
Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.
AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A.
AG v Hole, Rice and Rodrigues [2018] JRC 062A.
AG v Thurban et al [2020] JRC 191A
AG v Rae and Spinola [2017] JRC 080.
Carter v AG [1994] JRC 192
AG v Whelan, Grace and Robinson [2017] JRC 040B.