Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Hussain [2024] JRC 183 (12 September 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_183.html
Cite as: [2024] JRC 183
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Averty, Hughes, Le Heuzé, Opfermann and Ramsden |
The Attorney General
-v-
Mohammed Babrul Hussain
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:
First Indictment
|
2 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 (Count 1 and Count 2). |
Second Indictment
|
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). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of criminal property, contrary to Article 30(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 2). |
|
2 counts of: |
Converting criminal property, contrary to Article 31(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 3 and Count 4). |
|
1 count of: |
Removing criminal property, contrary to Article 31(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 5). |
Age: 32.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
A parcel was intercepted by Customs on 26 July 2023. The contents of the parcel were examined and found to contain 289 MDMA tablets and 980.83 grams of herbal cannabis (Counts 1 & 2 on the First Indictment). The Defendant was arrested and his mobile phone seized. A phone download was completed and the data showed the Defendant was knowingly concerned in this importation - the tracking and postage details were found on his phone which he had received from a third party, and then sent on to a UK associate for the drugs to be sent to that address. The phone data showed there were two further importations containing an unquantifiable amount of cannabis (Count 2 on the First Indictment). Also on his phone, was a photograph of small green bone-shaped tablets which appeared identical to the MDMA tablets that were seized.
In respect of Count 1 on the Second Indictment, the Defendant was concerned in the importation of an intercepted parcel containing 732.71g of herbal cannabis and 965.13g of cannabis resin, and at least eight further importations containing unquantifiable amounts of cannabis. Various messages and tracking labels on his phone evidenced that the Defendant had been receiving addresses and forwarding them on to UK associates. This ultimately resulted in parcels containing these controlled substances being delivered to the home addresses of juveniles, although some were intercepted before delivery.
Regarding the four money laundering offences on the Second Indictment, a total amount of £12,787 cash was deposited into the Defendant's bank account which consisted of multiple deposits over a circa 12-week period (Count 2). The Defendant also converted £1,199 cash into United States Dollars (Count 3) and £648 cash into Euros (Count 4) using the Foreign Exchange facilities at Jersey Post Office's on 4 and 5 January 2023. Whilst on Island between 14 and 18 March 2023, the Defendant removed £4,530 cash (Count 5) by depositing the monies into a bank account in his wife's name.
In his police interviews, the Defendant answered a mix of "no comment" and substantive answers. He initially denied knowledge of the third parties, he denied knowledge of the addresses but then went on to say he was not aware of all the parcels and just provided the addresses. He said he was "just the address guy" that got paid in "bud" or "maybe a couple hundred pounds if that". The Defendant accepted he knew the parcels contained cannabis but denied knowledge that they contained Class A drugs. In respect of the monies, he denied these were from the proceeds of crime, he denied laundering money and his story changed regarding the origins of the monies saying they were derived from gambling winnings or were proceeds from selling mopeds and cars at auction.
Details of Mitigation:
Early guilty pleas
Previous Convictions:
Previous convictions for common assault, motoring-related offences, theft, breach of court orders and possession of cannabis. The Defendant did not have any convictions for money laundering or drug trafficking.
Conclusions:
First Indictment
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 9 years' imprisonment. 6 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 2 years' imprisonment. 16 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Second Indictment
|
Count 1: |
Starting point 3 years' imprisonment. 2 years' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment. |
|
Count 2: |
Starting point 5 years' imprisonment. 18 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 on the Second Indictment. |
|
Count 3: |
Starting point 5 years' imprisonment. 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment. |
|
Count 4: |
Starting point 5 years' imprisonment. 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment. |
|
Count 5: |
Starting point 5 years' imprisonment. 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment. |
Total: 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Order for forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Confiscation order sought to recover €1,300.00 and £350.00.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted save for Count 3 on the Second indictment being reduced from 9 months to 6 months' imprisonment - this did not impact the total sentence (as Count 3 sentenced concurrently to other POCL counts).
Order for forfeiture and destruction of the drugs granted.
Confiscation order granted in the terms sought by the Crown.
L. Sette Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. We will give reasons for our decision in a written judgment to follow in course.
2. We make the declaration of benefit as the Attorney General has asked in the sum of £19,165.10 and a confiscation order of €1,300 and £350 as sought.
3. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
4. Careful consideration has been given to all of the arguments but the Court is entirely satisfied that the sentence moved for by the Attorney General is correct in all but one very minor particular.
5. Accordingly you are sentenced as follows:-
(i) Count 1 on the First Indictment, 6 years' imprisonment from a starting point of 9 years.
(ii) Count 2, 16 months' imprisonment, from a starting point of 2 years, concurrent to Count 1.
6. On the Second Indictment:-
(i) Count 1, 2 years from a starting point of 3 years, concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.
(ii) Count 2, 18 months' imprisonment from a starting point of 5 years, consecutive to Count 1 on the Second Indictment.
(iii) Count 3, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment.
(iv) Count 4, 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment.
(v) Count 5, 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment.
7. Making a total of 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Authorities
Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626
AG v Hole, Rice and Rodrigues [2018] JRC 062A
AG v Thurban & Ors [2020] JRC 191A
AG v Thurban & Ors [2020] JRC 212
AG v Agathangelou, Bayliss, Bisson & Morgan [2021] JRC 056
AG v Dryden & Whitcombe [2022] JRC 007