Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Importation of Class A drugs.

[2024]JRC181

Royal Court

(Samedi)

9 September 2024

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache, Commissioner, and Jurats Dulake, Averty, Cornish, Le Heuzé and Berry

The Attorney General

-v-

Matthew Ian Bowman

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

1 count 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 (Count 1).

Age:  42.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant imported 27.78 grams of cocaine through the post.  On 15 March 2024, a package was intercepted at Jersey Post Headquarters.  Cocaine was concealed in two plastic bags within a jar of coffee granules.  The package was addressed to the Defendant's home address, under a false name.  The tracking number of the package was found on the Defendant's phone.  The Defendant made full admissions in interview and stated that he imported the cocaine for his personal use.

 

The cocaine had a street value between £4,200 and £7,000 and the two plastic bags contained cocaine of 60 and 67 per cent purity respectively. 

Details of Mitigation:

No relevant previous convictions, guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, full cooperation with the investigation, low risk of re-offending, genuine remorse, imported for personal use.

Previous Convictions:

Two previous convictions from April 2024 for motoring offences

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 8 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment.

Total: 4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized.

Sentence of Court:

Count 1:

480 hours' Community Service Order (equivalent of 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment).

Total: 480 hours' Community Service Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized.

Crown Advocate L. E. Taylor for His Majesty's Attorney General.

Advocate D. C. Robinson for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Mr Bowman, you are here to be sentenced on an indictment containing one count of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods, in this case the Class A drug, cocaine.

2.        On 15 March 2024, a package was intercepted at Jersey Postal Headquarters and when opened the package was found to contain two chocolate eggs and one jar of coffee granules.  It was noted the coffee had some foreign objects amongst the granules and on closer inspection two bags containing a white substance were found.  That was analysed, and it was confirmed that there were two plastic wraps of cocaine with a total weight of 27.78 grams.

3.        On 18 April 2024, you attended the Elizabeth Terminal for an interview.  You admitted the package was yours and was for personal use only.  You informed officers that you had paid £1,000 for one ounce of cocaine.  You admitted you had purchased three grams of cocaine from a local dealer earlier on 17 March.  The admission of importing one ounce of cocaine is consistent with the amount found in the package to which I have referred.

4.        It is clear there was an element of planning in the offence given that you had contacted one of your associates in the UK from whom you had previously obtained drugs.  You have however pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, and you have accepted full responsibility for your actions.  The Crown accepts that the drugs imported were for your personal use and that there is no evidence of any onward supply of drugs previously which you say you have obtained locally. 

5.        Your plea of guilty reflects the remorse which you have expressed which is regarded by the Probation Service as entirely genuine.  You understand that your recent offending has caused significant distress to your family particularly your parents and sister, although we might add you perhaps should have thought of that before your offending.  We have read the very supportive references from them which emphasise your awareness of the impact your offending has had on the family and your remorse for that.  Apart from an irrelevant motoring conviction you are of good character, you have a good work record.

6.        This Court's approach to sentencing drug trafficking offences is well established and the case of Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373.  requires the Court to reach a starting point before applying personal mitigation.  That starting point measures the seriousness of the offence by having regard to the quantity of drugs imported and the Defendant's role in the importation.  The assessment of the role takes into account a number of factors, but particularly whether he was close to making the arrangements for importation or in the case of other drug trafficking offences how close he was to those principally concerned in the drug trafficking.  So, the assessment of a Defendant's role requires a judgment to be made as to his overall responsibility for the offence.

7.        In the present case there is no doubt that you arranged the importation and therefore you have direct responsibility for it, as indeed you have accepted.  The Rimmer guidelines indicate a starting point of 8 to 10 years for the importation of 20 to 50 grams of Class A controlled drugs, and having regard to the quantity of drugs you imported which the Crown accepts as the minimum quantity available to you, even though it was higher than you would have wished, and to your role in the importation the Court considers the starting point of 8 years' imprisonment to be correct.

8.        We turn next to your personal mitigation.  We allow a full discount for your guilty plea.  We take into account, your ready cooperation with the Prosecution in the admissions you made on interview in giving Customs officers the PIN for your mobile telephone, details of your bank accounts and, indeed, we have taken into account all the information which is before the Court.  You have said and the Crown has accepted that these drugs were for your own personal use.  This is a matter for personal mitigation and does not go to the starting point - see Shahnowaz v Attorney General [2007] JLR 221.

9.        As has been said by this Court and by the Court of Appeal there is an obvious difference in culpability between those who import drugs for personal use and those who import drugs for commercial purposes.  We are entitled to take into account, and we do, that this importation is accepted by the Crown as being an importation for personal use.  That does not remove your culpability for at least two reasons:

(i)        The gravamen of the offence of importation is that it results in an increase in the volume of dangerous drugs circulating in the Island and that of itself is an evil.  It is obvious that is the drugs are not in the Island they cannot be consumed here in whatever fashion.

(ii)       You have accepted that on other occasions you have acquired cocaine locally for your own use and that emphasises that by importing the drugs your recreational use of them would not have diminished the potential availability of cocaine in Island to other users. By importing the drugs the volume of cocaine available to other people from sources within the Island was notionally and probably actually increased. 

10.     Nonetheless we take the fact that the drugs were for your personal use into account in deciding upon your sentence.  Your counsel has referred to us the case of AG v Aguiar [2021] JRC 316 where a non-custodial sentence was imposed for a similar offence.  It cannot be said too often that reference to non-guideline cases is not particularly helpful as the Court is not necessarily aware of all the factors which may have motivated the earlier Court in passing sentence as it did.  Nonetheless, it is clear from reading the sentencing remarks in AG v Aguiar that not only was the decision to impose a non-custodial sentence, one taken on fine margins but also that the Defendant in that case named his supplier in open court and that is always an important factor in considering the sentence to be imposed.  We have also noted that his admissions in that case were such that they had a major effect in that he wrote his own indictment in respect of one of the charges which he faced.

11.     We have had regard to everything contained in the Social Enquiry Report to which your counsel has referred to us in detail, and we recognise and applaud your commitment to use this experience constructively. 

12.     The Court is divided as to how we should proceed with sentence.  Two Jurats were in favour of imposing a custodial sentence.  Three think it would be appropriate in this case, having regard to the extent of the mitigation available to you, which is unusual, that a Community Service Order should be imposed and because that is so, we are going to sentence you to 480 hours Community Service.  The alternative would have been 3 years' and 4 months in custody. 

13.     I have to warn you that if you fail to perform the Community Service you are liable to be brought back before this Court and sentenced again for the offence which you have admitted. 

14.     We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

15.     It was a matter of fine margins and we hope that you do, indeed learn from your experience. 

Authorities

Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG v Aguiar [2021] JRC 316.

Shahnowaz v AG [2007] JLR 221.