Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession and supply - Class A and Class B

[2023]JRC129

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 July 2023

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge, Christensen MBE, Hughes, Opfermann and Berry

The Attorney General

-v-

Shane Derek Lloyd

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 14 July 2023, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

First Indictment

2 counts of:

Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1 and Count 2).

Second Indictment

5 counts of:

Being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 1-5).

Age:  39. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On 10 March 2023 police attended the home address of the Defendant's partner.  During a search of the home address the police located and seized a total of 81.3 grams of cocaine and 1.173.58 kilograms of cannabis.  The Defendant was arrested and his iPhone was seized.

 

On same day police attended an address rented by the Defendant.  During a search of that address the police found and seized 0.043 grams of cocaine and 93.038 grams of cannabis.  Together all the cocaine seized comprised Count 1 on the First Indictment and all of the cannabis seized comprised Count 2 on the First Indictment.

 

The Defendant was further arrested and interviewed.  He made admissions that the cocaine and cannabis found belonged to him and were for personal use.  He denied that he was going to supply the drugs.  He refused to provide the PIN for his iPhone.

 

The Defendant's mobile phone was analysed and found to contain a deal list.  This list was last updated the evening before his arrest.  The figures next to the names on this list totalled £31,620.

 

The Defendant's phone was also found to contain a large number of messages offering to supply controlled drugs which dated as far back as 2021.  In the summer of 2021, the Defendant was concerned in the supplying of 6 grams of cocaine to an associate (Count 1, Second Indictment).  In January 2023, the Defendant was concerned in the supplying of 5 grams of cocaine and 10 grams of cannabis to an associate (Counts 4 and 5, Second Indictment).

 

Messages on the Defendant's phone also revealed that, in October 2022, the Defendant was messaging a serving prisoner at HMP La Moye and was concerned in the supplying of 4.5 grams of cocaine and 10 grams of cannabis (Counts 2 and 3, Second Indictment) into the prison for onward supply inside the prison during a short period.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, remorse, reference letters before the Court.

Previous Convictions:

16 previous convictions for drug offences, including three convictions for importing cannabis.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.  8 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	16 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	5 years and 4 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.
Count 2:	Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 on the First Indictment.
Count 3:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment.
Count 4:	5 years and 4 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the Second Indictment.

Total:  12 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and drug paraphernalia seized, along with the Defendant's mobile telephone, sought.

The Crown asked that confiscation be postponed for a period of three months.

Order sought under Article 8(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.  7 years and 4 months imprisonment.
Count 2:	16 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.
Count 2:	Starting point 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 on the First Indictment.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 of the Second Indictment.
Count 4:	Starting point 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment, concurrent to First Indictment.
Count 5:	1 months' imprisonment, concurrent to First Indictment.

Total:  11 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and drug paraphernalia seized, along with the Defendant's mobile telephone, ordered.

Confiscation matters adjourned to a dated to be fixed in October 2023.

Order made under Article 8(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. E. Binnie for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Shane Lloyd, you are 39 years old.  On the morning of 10 March 2023, police went to your home in St Saviour and arrested you and seized your mobile telephone.  In the premises, the police found and seized items indicative of drug dealing including electronic scales, small resealable plastic bags and other items including 81.3 grams of cocaine, 1.173 kilograms of cannabis resin and £4,450 in cash in £10 and £20 notes.  Later the same morning, police attended an address in Trinity rented by you where they found other items indicative of drug dealing including traces of cocaine and just over 93 grams of cannabis resin, making across the two premises a total of 81.3 grams of cocaine and 1.257 kilograms of cannabis resin.

2.        When you were interviewed by the police later the same day you accepted the drugs were yours, but you lied and said they were for your personal use.  You claimed you had stolen the cannabis and cocaine from a man and when you did so it was already packaged as found by the police.  The Crown rejects this and you accept that you will be sentenced on the Crown's basis, namely that these were your drugs and you were dealing them on your own account.  You accepted the mobile telephone was yours, but you refused to assist the police in obtaining access to it.

3.        The total value of the cocaine was between £9,960 and £12,000 and the value of the cannabis resin was between £28,600 and £33,250.

4.        Your telephone was analysed and that analysis shows that you were heavily involved in drug dealing in Jersey on a commercial basis and you were owed or had received over £31,000 by or from various individuals.

5.        The offences to which you pleaded guilty reflect drug dealing since 2021 - a period of two years, some of which time you were on Royal Court probation which is an aggravating circumstance. 

6.        The telephone messages also revealed, subject to the Second Indictment, that between 19 October and 29 October 2022 you were messaging a serving prisoner at La Moye and actively supplying cocaine and cannabis to that prisoner for, to your knowledge, onward supply inside the prison.  During this period you supplied 4.5 grams of cocaine and 10 grams of cannabis.  Some was planned to be thrown over a wall and some was smuggled into the prison using a female visitor who became involved in serious criminal offences on your behalf. 

7.        The text exchanges between you and the prisoner have been explored before us today and they are indicative of the fact that you and he agreed that the cocaine you were supplying would be further adulterated in custody by him and sold to prisoners for £600 per gram, three times the price at which you were selling the drugs in the community, giving you an additional return which he estimated as being £2,000 profit.  The exchanges indicated that there was a successful supply into La Moye.  "All went well" the prisoner told you on 26 October.  On 28 October the prisoner messaged you to the effect that someone had informed upon him and some of the drugs that he held had been seized by prison officers, and he concludes the message by saying that he and another prisoner were going to find out who it was who had informed the prison authorities and in his words "ruin them".  These messages show the real dangers of supplying drugs to create a market, as you did, to this captive market in the prison. 

8.        At your first appearance before the Magistrate on 13 March 2023 you pleaded not guilty to the counts on the First Indictment in relation to the drugs found at your home but you changed those pleas to guilty on 6 April 2023 and you entered guilty pleas to the five counts on the Second Indictment at the first opportunity on 14 July 2023 in this Court.  Accordingly, having regard to your pleas overall and the dates upon which they were entered, we agree that you should receive full credit for those pleas of guilty. 

9.        Nonetheless these are, particularly the offences involving Class A drugs, serious and any supply of drugs to those in custody, is also serious. 

10.      Class A drugs are dangerous and the maximum sentence for the offences to which you pleaded guilty involving those drugs is one of life imprisonment.  We have had regard to the guidelines and the starting point on Count 1 of the First Indictment we fix at 11 years' imprisonment, accepting the Crown's argument that the starting point of 10 years calculated by reference to the weight of the cocaine should be augmented by 1 year to reflect the uplift that is necessary to take account of the substantial amount of cannabis resin seized from the premises with which you were connected.

11.      As to the supply of Class A drugs into the prison, there is a powerful public interest in imposing a significant deterrent sentence in respect of any offender who supplies drugs to the prison and thereby creates a market in the custodial environment which is likely to result in preventing those in custody from living a clean and drug-free lifestyle and giving rise to the bullying, violence and other antisocial behaviour which accompanies dealing in drugs in such an environment.  We saw evidence of this in this case to which we have just referred. 

12.      Such a supply is also contrary to the principles of good order which ought to be maintained in prison.  We have no doubt that a deterrent sentence is warranted in relation to any offence involving supply to persons in custody, such a sentence to be consecutive to any sentence imposed at the same time. 

13.      The starting point on the Second Indictment for the offences at Count 2 would usually be in the region of 7½ years' imprisonment.  We have no doubt that it is appropriate to impose a consecutive custodial sentence in relation to the offences of supply to the prison.  We have stood back and had regard to the principle of totality and reduce the sentence for the offence at Count 2 on the Second Indictment accordingly.  But had that offence been dealt with on its own then you would have faced a custodial term longer than that that we are going to impose today in relation to that count.

14.      We note that you have a bad record for drugs offences, including importation of over 6 kilograms of cannabis into France in October 2014, and that you failed to serve the sentence that was imposed by the French court in relation to that offence.

15.      You are assessed at being at high risk of re-offending and we agree that there is little mitigation available to you beyond your guilty plea, although we note your strong work record, your letter to us, the message by email from your partner and have regard to the hardship that your family will suffer as a consequence of your incarceration. 

16.      It is said that you have named your supplier in this case.  We have had regard to the decision of the Royal Court in AG v Silbourne [2022] JRC 222, particularly paragraphs 18 and 19.  In that case the Royal Court noted that the defendant had named his supplier to the authorities, who had carried out sufficient enquiries as a result to be satisfied that what the defendant had said was truthful.  The court said in that case that "He has in fact provided information which is new and which may lead to further investigations and possibly to one or more arrests and convictions."  This was described as being "very significant mitigation"  and the court said it wished "to encourage defendants to provide information of this kind because it is an important tool in the armoury which the law enforcement authorities have for the purposes of fighting drug trafficking."  The Court proceeded in that case on the footing that the information that the authorities received was credible.  In this case the Crown and the Court have no way of saying this and the police reject what is said by way of the purported identification of your supplier as being credible; and accordingly we can give no weight to that mitigation advanced on your behalf. 

17.      The sentences that we impose are as follows:-

(i)        On Count 1 of the First Indictment, from a staring point of 11 years, we impose a sentence of 7 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

(ii)       Count 2, 16 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

(iii)      On the Second Indictment, from a starting point of 7½ years' imprisonment, we impose a sentence of 5 years imprisonment, concurrent to the sentence on Count 1 of the First Indictment.

(iv)      On Count 2, from a starting point of 7½ years' imprisonment, the sentence is one of 4 years' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 of the First Indictment.

(v)       On Count 3, 12 months' imprisonment concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment but consecutive to the other counts.

(vi)      Count 4, from a 7½ years' starting point, 5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

(vii)     Count 5, 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

A total of 11 years and 4 months' imprisonment. 

18.      We order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and drug paraphernalia seized along with your mobile telephone.

19.      Confiscation matters are adjourned to a dated to be fixed in October 2023.  We make an order made under Article 8(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999

Authorities

AG v Silbourne [2022] JRC 222. 

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Schedule 4)

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136

Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383

AG v Zaman [2013] JRC 139

AG v Driscoll and Morgan [2015] JRC 154B

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Article 6 and 8)