Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation and supply - Class A - reasons

[2024]JRC024

Royal Court

(Samedi)

29 January 2024

Before     :

Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge, Christensen MBE, Averty, Le Heuzé and Opfermann

The Attorney General

-v-

Sean Alexander Heatlie

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 19^th October 2023, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

First Indictment

1 count of:	Being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Being concerned in the offer to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).

Second Indictment

4 counts of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 to 4).
1 count of:	Possession of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 5).

Age:  56

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

Phone and banking records of Sean Alexander Heatlie (the "Defendant") show that over a period of about a year (June 2021 to February 2022) the Defendant was involved in the supply of over 230 grams of cocaine.  He also offered to supply five MDMA tablets.

 

During the investigation of the supply offences the Defendant left Jersey, in breach of police bail. Whilst living in Edinburgh he sent in the post three postal importations of cocaine.  A fourth importation occurred when he returned to Jersey by ferry.

 

He also pleaded guilty to possession of criminal property, namely £194,749, the proceeds of his drug dealing between 1 March 2021 and 17 November 2022.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas although in relation to Indictment 2 these were entered on arraignment and therefore reduced credit for those offences.  No other mitigation.

Previous Convictions:

Defendant has previous convictions for offences including money laundering, harassment and offence of violence.  He has no previous drug convictions.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  8 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years and 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  5 years and 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 2:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years and 11 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  5 years and 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	Starting point 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  5 years and 11 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	Starting point 6 years imprisonment.  2 years' imprisonment (reduced from 4 years on totality), consecutive.

Total:  10 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation hearing postponed until 5 January 2024.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  8 years and 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years and 8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years and 8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 2:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years and 8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years and 8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	Starting point 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  5 years and 8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	Starting point 6 years imprisonment.  2 years' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total:  10 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation hearing postponed until 5 January 2024.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. E. Binnie for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        On 30 November 2023, we sat to sentence Sean Alexander Heatlie ("the Defendant") with regard to seven offences contained on two indictments: six relating to the supply of unlawful drugs and one of money laundering.  On that occasion, we sentenced the Defendant as follows:

(i)        First Indictment / Count 1: being concerned in the supply of 239 grams of cocaine - from a starting point of 12 years 6 months - 8 years 4 months imprisonment.

(ii)       First Indictment / Count 2: being concerned in the supply of 5 MDMA tablets - from a starting point of 7 years - 4 years and 8 months imprisonment.

(iii)      Second Indictment / Count 1: being concerned in the importation of 7 grams of cocaine - from a starting point of 7 years - 4 years and 8 months imprisonment.

(iv)     Second Indictment / Count 2: being concerned in the importation of 5.46 grams of cocaine - from a starting point of 7 years - 4 years and 8 months imprisonment.

(v)      Second Indictment / Count 3: being concerned in the importation of an unknown quantity of cocaine - from a starting point of 7 years - 4 years and 8 months imprisonment.

(vi)     Second Indictment / Count 4: being concerned in the importation of 36 grams of cocaine - from a starting point of 8 years and 6 months imprisonment - 5 years and 8 months imprisonment.

(vii)     Second Indictment / Count 5: - money laundering - from a starting point of 6 years - 2 years imprisonment.

2.        Counts 1 and 2 on the First Indictment and Counts 1 to 4 inclusive on the Second Indictment were to run concurrently, and all were to run consecutively with Count 5 on the second indictment, making a total of 10 years and 4 months imprisonment.

3.        At the time we handed down sentence, we indicated that we would provide reasons at a later occasion.  These are those reasons.

The facts

4.        The summary of facts read out before us reflects that the Defendant was involved in the supply of a total of 239 grams of cocaine direct to users and that phone and bank records indicated that over a period of about a year he was involved in almost one hundred transactions in which he sold Class A drugs.  In addition, deal lists were found on his phone.  He had also offered to supply five MDMA tablets.

5.        He was also sentenced in relation to four importations into Jersey of cocaine - three postal importations and one when he returned to Jersey on the ferry from the United Kingdom.

6.        We do not think that we need to state more about the facts of the Defendant's offending.  It is quite clear that he was involved in drugs importation and dealing over a significant period and that he laundered the proceeds of that trade.  The money laundering count on the Indictment (Indictment 2, Count 5) covered a sum of £194,749.09 of unexplained deposits from third parties.  He used this money over a period to fund a lifestyle that he would not otherwise afford, including some £10,000 on hotels and Airbnbs, £9,500 on travel expenses, £10,000 on pornography and more than £9,000 in restaurants, cafes and takeaways.

7.        The total value of the drugs in the other counts does not exceed £46,000 and the money laundering charge reveals a much broader drug dealing activity. 

8.        The Crown approached the money laundering sentencing on the basis that it identified a starting point of 6 years and would have, had the offence stood alone, moved for a sentence of 4 years imprisonment.  The Crown moved for a sentence of 2 years consecutive to the sentence on the other counts, however, to reflect the totality of the sentence. 

9.        We were advised by Crown Advocate Hallam that the sentencing exercise undertaken by the Crown in reaching its conclusions had involved a deduction from the identified starting point of one-third when guilty pleas have been entered at the earliest opportunity and one-quarter when the pleas had been entered somewhat later.  There had also been an element of rounding the figures thereby arrived at. 

10.     We had the appropriate authorities relating to commercial importation and supply of drugs placed before us.

11.     In Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373, the Court of Appeal laid down sentencing guidelines to be applied in cases concerning the trafficking of Class A controlled drugs in powder form.  The position of a particular defendant within the bands identified by the Court of Appeal is determined by reference to the weight of the drugs and the defendant's role and involvement as the main factors, the value of the drugs should also be considered although it is a factor of less significance.  The guidelines indicate a starting point of between 7 to 9 years for offences involving 1 to 20 grams of powder, 8 to 10 years for offences involving 20 to 50 grams of powder, and 10 to 13 years for offences involving 100 to 250 grams of powder.

12.     In Bonnar v AG [2001] JLR 626, the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for the trafficking of Class A controlled drugs in tablet or unit form.  They indicate a starting point of between 7 and 9 years for offences involving 1 to 500 tablets of Class A drugs.

13.     There is authority to suggest, however, that it is not always appropriate or necessary to follow the strict sentencing guidelines because the offence covers a wide range of offending behaviours.  In AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 027, the Court gave consideration to this point.  The defendant in that case was sentenced to 3½ years' imprisonment for several drugs offences, including possession with intent to supply and being concerned in the supply of MDMA and cannabis.  He had been dealing drugs for a 5 month period.  The Court considered that the sentencing guidelines should be applied where the offender engaged in activities which would also have amounted to an offence under Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, as being concerned in the supply of such drugs covered a very wide range of potential activities and the guidelines were not always, in the Court's mind, applicable.  At paragraph 13 of the judgment the Court stated:

"13.      Had Article 8(2) been charged, the Rimmer guidelines would have applied.  The Article 5 and Article 8(2) offences carry the same maximum sentence where the same classification of drugs is involved.  The gravamen of the two offences is also the same.  It would be illogical to take the same activity and apply the Rimmer guidelines if that activity is charged under Article 8(2) but not under Article 5(c).  Obviously, if "being concerned" related to a different participation in the overall activity of the drugs being supplied, that would raise the considerations which were the subject of the decisions in Antunes and in McDonough.  Accordingly, where an Article 5 offence is charged, we rule that the Rimmer, Bonner and Campbell guidelines apply if the offence involved the defendant engaging in activities which would also have amounted to an offence under Article 8(2).  Those guidelines may well of course apply to the other offences under Article 5 too, depending on what the defendant's involvement or activity actually was."

14.     We agree with the Crown that it is appropriate to pay regard to the sentencing guidelines contained in Rimmer above.  We identify that the Defendant has been closely involved in the drugs trade in as much as he was an importer, and direct supplier of drugs on a substantial commercial scale.

15.     With regard to the authorities on the possession of criminal property - the money laundering offence - the Court, in AG v Hagin [2020] JRC 176, applied the approach set out in AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 in which that Court set out the key principles to be considered when sentencing money laundering offences.  The principles identified by the Court were as follows:

"(i)      There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the sentence for the laundering offence and the original antecedent offence.  Where, however, the particular antecedent offence can be identified, some regard will be had to the appropriate sentence for that offence when considering the appropriate sentence for the laundering offence.

(ii)       The criminality in laundering is the assistance, support and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct.

(iii)      Regard should be had to the extent of the launderer's knowledge of the antecedent offence.

(iv)      The amount of money laundered is a relevant factor.

(v)       No distinction is to be drawn as a matter of law between the laundering of one's own proceeds of crime and the proceeds of crime committed by third parties.

(vi)      The duration, sophistication and scale of money laundering are also relevant considerations.

(vii)     The interest of Jersey as a finance centre justifies a deterrent element."

16.     Applying those principles to the instant case, it is clear that the evidence indicates that the predicate offence is one of drug trafficking.  The money was the proceeds of the Defendant's own drug dealing and it is clear by reason of the pleas entered that the Defendant in this case was well aware that the proceeds in his account came from drug dealing.

17.     We have already indicated that the amount was £194,749 and that the Defendant was laundering the proceeds of his own drug dealing.  The Defendant used his own bank account and it could not be said that that was particularly sophisticated as an operation and, of course, it is clear that he used the banking system in Jersey to hold the proceeds of his drug dealing.

18.     In AG v Cooney and Reaney [2023] JRC 022, the defendants were sentenced for entering into an arrangement to remove £112,945 from the island.  In that case, the Court adopted a six year starting point.

19.     In AG v Hole, Rice and Rodrigues [2018] JRC 062A, the defendants were sentenced for entering into an arrangement to remove £115,000 from the island, alongside drug trafficking offences.  The Court there adopted a six year starting point for the money laundering offence.

20.     The Defendant has a number of convictions for offences, including those of violence, money laundering and harassment.  He has no previous convictions for drugs offences but, by dint of his record, he has no mitigation for good character.

21.     He entered guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity in relation to the counts on Indictment 1, and guilty pleas in relation to two of the counts on Indictment 2 were also entered at an early stage.

22.     It is perhaps also important to note that the delay in relation to dealing with the first indictment was caused by the Defendant absconding from Jersey whilst on police bail.  He continued to offend whilst in Scotland.

23.     He is assessed as being at a moderate risk of reconviction.

24.     The defence argue that the Crown's starting point is too high and point to positive references and the fact that the Defendant had a difficult childhood.  His previous money laundering conviction was characterised as relating to theft as an employee and not drugs related.  He had a good work record.  The defence also points to the remorse that, it is submitted, the Defendant feels. 

Sentence

25.     This was a serious catalogue of offending and it is clear that the drugs element on the indictment are not reflective of the totality of the criminality in this case given the amounts involved in the money laundering offence.  That seems to the Court to be more reflective of the extent of the Defendant's behaviour in trading in illegal drugs.

26.     By a majority we have approached the sentencing of the drugs offences in this matter by establishing what we assess to be the correct starting points and then deducting a full third.  The one-third reduction reflects not only the appropriate allowance for the guilty pleas in this case, irrespective of whether or not the pleas were entered at the earliest possible opportunity or a short while thereafter but includes other mitigation.  Those sentences should be concurrent with each other and accordingly, in the light of the sentence on Count 1 on the First Indictment, the total sentence of imprisonment for the drugs offences is 8 years and 4 months.

27.     Turning to the money laundering offence, we are satisfied that in the circumstances of this case it is entirely appropriate that punishment should be consecutive.  As we have already said, the total involved in the money laundering significantly exceeds the total value of the drugs dealt with in the drugs counts. 

28.     We agree with the Crown that the starting point is one of 6 years which seemed to us to be consistent with previous cases.  Removing a third would take the overall sentence for that element down to 4 years.  We have, with regard both to totality and whatever small element might be appropriate to allow for any other mitigation, accepted the Crown's reduction to 2 years. 

29.     That sentence will run consecutive to those imposed on the drugs counts, making a total of 10 years and 4 months imprisonment.  We consider the absconding and continuing to deal in drugs whilst on bail a serious aggravating feature.

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. 

Bonnar v AG [2001] JLR 626. 

AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 027. 

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. 

AG v Hagin [2020] JRC 176. 

AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165. 

AG v Cooney and Reaney [2023] JRC 022.  

AG v Hole, Rice and Rodrigues [2018] JRC 062A