Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Averty, Hughes, Le Heuzé, Opfermann and Ramsden |
The Attorney General
-v-
Mohammed Babrul Hussain
L. Sette Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.
reasons
THE BAILIFF:
1. On 12 September 2024, this Court sentenced Mohammed Babrul Hussain ("the Defendant") for offences under Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 and Article 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 in as much as he was knowingly concerned in the importation of cannabis and MDMA into Jersey, and with regard to four money laundering offences under Articles 31(1)(c) and 31(1)(d) of the Proceed of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (AG v Hussain [2024] JRC 183).
2. On that occasion, he was sentenced as follows:
First Indictment:
Count 1 relating to the importation of 289 MDMA tablets - 6 years imprisonment;
Count 2 relating to the importation of cannabis - 16 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment.
Second Indictment:
Count 1 relating to the importation of cannabis - 2 years imprisonment concurrent to Count 1 on the First Indictment;
Count 2 - possession of criminal property, specifically £12,787 - 18 months imprisonment consecutive to Count 1 on the Second Indictment;
Count 3 - converting £1,199.65 - 6 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment;
Count 4 - converting £648 - 3 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment;
Count 5 - removing criminal property contrary to Article 31(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime Law with regard to £4,530 - 9 months imprisonment concurrent to Count 2 on the Second Indictment.
3. Accordingly, the total imprisonment imposed upon the Defendant was 7 years and 6 months imprisonment.
4. The facts may be briefly stated. With regard to the First Indictment, a parcel was sent to an address in Jersey from an address in the United Kingdom purportedly containing cushions. On examination, the cushions had been cut open and there was a package containing 289 MDMA tablets and packages containing a combined total of 980.83 grams of herbal cannabis. The MDMA had a value of between £6,000 and £8,000, and the herbal cannabis had a value of between £24,000 and £33,000.
5. An analysis of the Defendant's mobile phone showed communications between the Defendant and a third party relating to the address in Jersey to which the package had been sent, and there was a further message from the same individual asking the Defendant to send him addresses. Also, on the Defendant's phone was found a picture of small green bone shaped tablets which were identical to the MDMA tablets seized from the packages.
6. The Defendant was interviewed under caution on 7 December 2023 to which he answered no comment to most questions.
7. With regard to the Second Indictment, on 23 December 2022, an outbound UPS package was selected by the UK Border Force for inspection at East Midlands Airport. It was addressed to an address in Jersey showing the sender as an individual in the United Kingdom.
8. Inspection revealed that, concealed within a karaoke speaker, the package contained 732.71 grams of herbal cannabis and a further 965.13 grams of cannabis resin which has a value at street level between £37,000 and £55,000.
9. Ten days after the parcel was intercepted, a warrant was conducted at the address on the package which was the home address of a fifteen year old youth. Located at that address were two grey UPS postal packets and the label on the wrapper was connected with labels also referenced and found on the Defendant's mobile phone.
10. Following the interception of the parcel, the Defendant then provided a new address, being that of a fifteen year old female. It is clear from the information contained on the Defendant's mobile phone that he was involved in the shipment of a number of parcels containing cannabis.
11. On 23 February 2023, a parcel was delivered to a female youth's address also in Jersey and again the address was linked to communication on the Defendant's mobile phone. It is clear that the Defendant was knowingly concerned in this further importation as well.
12. With regard to Count 2, a total of £12,787 in cash was deposited between 5 January 2022 to 16 March 2023 in the Defendant's Lloyds Bank account, and it is also clear that the Defendant attended at the Jersey Post Office in January 2023 where he exchanged Sterling for US Dollars, and on 5 January where he exchanged Sterling for Euros. In total, he exchanged cash at Jersey Post into foreign currency totalling £1,847.
13. When he was arrested in December 2023, he was in possession of an HSBC Bank card in his wife's name and account ledgers indicate that, for this bank card, deposits were made at King Street in St Helier between 15 and 17 March amounting to a total of £4,530.
14. Evidence from the Defendant's mobile phone illustrates that he had been living beyond his means with the purchase of high value watches.
15. He was interviewed on a number of occasions, initially asserting the deposits into his bank account were the proceeds of gambling, then changing his story to say the gambling did not take place at bookies but was done through the course of his former employment with ex-colleagues, or the monies came from selling mopeds and cars that he had bought at auction.
16. In one of the interviews, he maintained he was "just the address guy" and he got paid for his actions in cannabis with perhaps a couple of hundred pounds in addition. He was simply tasked with obtaining addresses and not the sale of drugs and he was not aware of all of the parcels or what they contained. He accepted he knew that the packages contained cannabis but did not know that any contained MDMA.
17. In connection with the money laundering charges, he was arrested on 4 July 2024 and initially gave no comment answers, continuing to assert that the deposits were his winnings from gambling.
18. He pleaded guilty on 8 December 2023 in relation to the two charges on the First Indictment. On 2 August 2024, having been permitted not to plead prior to that time, the Defendant indicated, through counsel, guilty pleas to the counts on the Second Indictment.
19. The Crown has put before us the appropriate cases. For the trafficking of Class A in tablet or unit form, the principal authority is Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626, in which the Court of Appeal set starting points in bands by reference to the quantity of drugs involved, the accused's role and the value of the drugs. Although the value should be considered, it is of less significance. The guidelines indicate a starting point of between seven and nine years for offences involving 1 to 500 tablets of Class A drugs. In this case, the Defendant was concerned with the importation of 289 MDMA tablets with a street value of between £5,000 and £8,000.
20. With regard to the importation of cannabis, a Class B drug, the relevant guideline case is Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136. Those guidelines indicate a starting point of between two and six years imprisonment for quantities between 1 and 10 kilograms. Again, the position of the particular defendant within the used bands is to be determined by reference to the weight of the drugs and the defendant's role and involvement as principal factors. Once again, the value of the drugs, whilst it falls to be considered, is a factor of less significance.
21. The Defendant was concerned in this case with the importation of a package containing 980.83 grams of herbal cannabis and a second package containing 732.71 of herbal cannabis and 965.13 grams of cannabis resin with the values set out above.
22. The Defendant utilised the postal system to import controlled drugs into Jersey. There were three different addresses used, those being the home addresses of two young people. We agree with the Crown's characterisation that the Defendant orchestrated the acquisition of addresses to send importations containing Class A and Class B drugs.
23. Whilst the Defendant has maintained that his sole role was the provision of addresses, on considering the evidence the court thinks that he must have been aware that those addresses belonged to young people. In addition to providing addresses and planning to secure various locations and arranging details for those receiving the packages, by reason of his guilty pleas to the money laundering offences, the Defendant was involved in obtaining money from individuals selling the drugs and depositing the proceeds into bank accounts in Jersey and, indeed, exchanging some as we have indicated for foreign currency.
24. The Defendant himself characterises the entire operation as highly sophisticated and he played an important role in that. When asked whether he felt he had exploited the young people involved, his attitude was that he had never placed any pressure on any of the young people to sell drugs and that they had enjoyed making significant amounts of money and being able to purchase designer items.
25. The Defendant does not have a good record, but these are his first convictions for drug trafficking.
26. We have, of course, taken into account the references provided by the defence and indeed the Defendant's letter of remorse.
27. By way of mitigation, we are told that the Defendant had ceased his criminal activity some six months before his arrest, having decided to get out of that business. He had provided his PIN number and bank details and we are urged to give proper value to his pleas of guilty. It was also pointed out that the Defendant had a young family and that they will inevitably suffer by a long period of imprisonment.
28. The Court has observed on many occasions that it cannot, other than in exceptional circumstances, place great weight on the effects on a defendant's family because of his criminality. The Defendant did not take this into account when becoming involved in the criminal activity and, in general, the Court is not able to give such factors much weight by way of mitigation.
29. The Court considers the involvement of young people in the importation of drugs into Jersey an aggravating feature.
30. With regard to the fact that more than one type of drug is involved, the Crown has proceeded on the basis of an uplift for the starting point for the most serious count in accordance with the principles of Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383. We agreed and sentenced accordingly. The Crown proceeds on the basis of an eight year starting point for the MDMA importation had that stood alone, but with an uplift to take totality into account of one year to that starting point to encompass the fact that cannabis in significant quantities was also imported. Accordingly, the Crown move for a starting point of nine years imprisonment on the drugs offending with which we agreed.
31. On the matter of the Proceeds of Crime Law offences, the Court has considered the factors normally taken into account as set out in AG v Hagin [2020] JRC 176 and AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165. We can, of course, assess the nature of the predicate offence because clearly the proceeds of crime offending deals with the proceeds of drug trafficking. It is quite clear he was entirely aware of this and it is equally clear that he was in possession of, converted and removed a total of £19,164.65 as part of that offending. Whilst the money laundering operation itself was not very sophisticated, naturally it used a Jersey banking system and foreign exchange systems to launder the proceeds of this criminal conduct. The Crown has put before us a number of cases where the Court has imposed differing sentences in connection with offences under the Proceeds of Crime Law. We do not intend to set those out.
32. Naturally we have considered the matter of totality, although we agree with the Crown that inevitably the money laundering offences should attract a consecutive sentence to the drug trafficking offences to reflect the wider criminality of that offending.
33. For those reasons we imposed the sentences set out in paragraph 2 above.
34. We were also asked to make an order for confiscation which was not opposed by the defence. Accordingly, we made a declaration of benefit in the sum of £19,165.10 and a confiscation order in the sum of €1,300 and £350. We also ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.
Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.
Proceed of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.