Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - Class B - possession - supply - threatening conduct - reasons for decision

[2023]JRC030

Royal Court

(Samedi)

20 February 2023

The Attorney General

-v-

Ian Stuart Richomme

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. B. Wauchope for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        On 15 December 2022, we sentenced the Defendant to 4 years and 21 weeks' imprisonment (AG v Richomme [2022] JRC 283) and now give our reasons for so doing.

2.        The Defendant is 28 years old and has a significant list of previous convictions, including appearances in the Royal Court resulting, inter alia, in a sentence of 14 months imprisonment in July 2015 and 4 years imprisonment (3 years for robbery and 1 year consecutive for harassment) in July 2017.

3.        In February 2022, the Defendant was in possession of a sports bag containing approximately 6.5 kilograms of cannabis, both resin and herbal.  The bag was found near a school at 7am on 4 February 2022.  In addition to containing 21 complete slabs or bars of cannabis resin and 1 half bar with a wholesale value of between £52,800 and £69,600 and a street / retail value of between £158,550 and £221,970, the bag also contained clothes and other items belonging to the Defendant.  Two of the Defendant's fingerprints were found on a piece of plastic at the bottom of the bag. 

4.        A few hours before the bag was found, the Defendant was seen near Howard Davis Park, apparently intoxicated, and looking for the bag which he appeared to have mislaid.  In evidence, the Defendant said he was 'completely off his head' when he was seen by the police looking for his bag the night before it was found

5.        When the Defendant was arrested and interviewed on 9 February 2022, he gave an incoherent account at interview, the gist of which was that he found the sports bag in the street and had only picked it up so that he could put his belongings inside it.  At trial, he said in evidence that when he realised the bag contained drugs he abandoned it.

6.        The Crown's case at trial was that the Defendant was in possession of the bag knowing that it contained drugs, and that the cannabis was possessed by him with intent to supply.  It was not in dispute that this was a commercial quantity of cannabis and could not have been possessed by anyone for any other purpose than supply to another. 

7.        At the trial the Jurats were directed that if they were sure that the Defendant had in his possession the cannabis knowing it to be cannabis or any other controlled drug and that he intended to supply it to another, then they should return a verdict of guilty, but if they thought the Defendant's account was or may be true, namely that he discovered the bag on the road, decided to put his clothes and other belongings in it and then, in panic, discarded the bag and its contents a few minutes later, then they were to acquit the Defendant.  The Jurats rejected the Defendant's account and returned a verdict of guilty.

8.        The Defendant faced a second indictment to which he pleaded guilty, containing an offence of threatening and abusive behaviour.  The circumstances were that at 11.30pm on Sunday 10 July 2022, whilst the Defendant was on Royal Court bail, he arrived outside a nightclub in St Helier with others.  He was extremely offensive to a doorman and was drunk.  The doorman thought the Defendant wanted to attack him and said the Defendant was extremely aggressive.  Footage of the Defendant's conduct was played to the Court when he was sentenced.  The Defendant admitted the offence in interview. 

9.        Subsequently, a month later and while still on Royal Court bail, on 12 August 2022, the Defendant and his girlfriend spent the afternoon drinking in St Helier with friends.  When the girlfriend returned to her home in St Clement, she noted that the patio doors at the rear of the property had been smashed.  She telephoned the Defendant who attended.  Neighbours heard the subsequent telephone conversation in which the Defendant made extremely aggressive threats to a third party.  Again, the tape of the conversation was played to the Court when the Defendant was sentenced.  The threats included threats to assault, maim and to sexually assault the partner of the person that the Defendant appeared to hold responsible for vandalising his girlfriend's property.  Those who overheard the conversation were concerned for the welfare of the persons to whom the Defendant was speaking.  They contacted the police.  The Defendant was arrested and denied making the threats overheard and, indeed, when the tape recording of the threats he made was played to him, he denied it was his voice.  He declined to give officers access to his mobile telephone.  Subsequently, the Defendant admitted the offence.

10.      As to sentence, our attention was drawn to the guidelines in Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136, where the Court of Appeal laid down the guideline of a starting point of between 2 and 6 years imprisonment for trafficking between 1 and 10 kilograms of cannabis.  The position of a particular defendant within this band must be determined by reference to the weight of the drugs and the defendant's role.  The Crown said that the amount and value of the drugs in this case demonstrated that the Defendant had a trusted role within the drug trafficking community.  We agreed.  The Crown contended for a starting point of 4½ years imprisonment. 

11.      The defence argued that the starting point should be 4 years in the absence of evidence that the Defendant had a significant role.  It was said that the starting point was to reflect that the Defendant's role was no greater than that of a 'minder' of the drugs.

12.      In our view, the Crown's starting point was warranted and we accepted it.  This was a significant commercial amount of cannabis with a substantial street value and whether the Defendant was minding these drugs for another or intended to sell them on his own account, the quantity alone indicated that he was trusted by those with access to very substantial amounts of cannabis.

13.      The maximum sentence for the two disorderly conduct offences is three months imprisonment.  There are no sentencing guidelines and it is unnecessary to set a starting point.  Both were unpleasant offences and were committed whilst the Defendant was both intoxicated and on Royal Court bail.

14.      When the Defendant was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment in July 2017, the Court noted that the Defendant had "a troubled past but it seems to us that he has been given every opportunity to turn that around".  Advocate Wauchope drew our attention to the relevant paragraphs in the pre-sentence report which listed a number of traumatic events in the Defendant's life and we accept his description that the Defendant's formative years were "crowded with bereavement, abuse and neglect".

15.      We also agree with defence counsel that the threats giving rise to the final offence were "ugly, nasty threats".  We were encouraged by the fact that the Defendant is beginning to address his difficulties in custody and appears motivated to change.  We agree with the Crown that the principle of totality militates against consecutive sentences for all three offences and agree that the second and third (public order) offences should be the subject of concurrent sentences.

16.      Having regard to all the circumstances in the case, we note and agree with the Crown's conclusion that the appropriate sentence, having regard to the absence of a guilty plea but taking into account all the circumstances set out above, for the principal offence is 4 years and 13 weeks imprisonment.  We granted the Crown's conclusions in respect of the July 2022 offence, and reduced the Crown's conclusions in respect of the August 2022 offence from 10 weeks to 8 weeks in order to reflect the Defendant's plea of guilty.  The sentences we imposed are as follows:

(i)        Possession of cannabis with intent to supply: 4 years and 13 weeks imprisonment.

(ii)       Threatening and abusive behaviour on 10 July 2022: 4 weeks imprisonment consecutive to the first offence.

(iii)      Threatening and abusive behaviour on 12 August 2022: 8 weeks imprisonment consecutive to the first offence but concurrent to the second offence.

Total sentence:         4 years and 21 weeks imprisonment.

17.      We made Confiscation and Destruction Orders as announced when sentence was passed.

Authorities

AG v Richomme [2022] JRC 283. 

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136.