Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner, and Jurats Dulake, Austin-Vautier, Opfermann, Berry and Ramsden. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Tony Bernard Spencer
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges -
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 1990 (Count 1 and 2). |
Age: 50.
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
On 10 April 2024, the Defendant imported 287 grams of cocaine and 8.75 kilograms of cannabis into the Island. The Defendant, having arrived from France on the ferry, was stopped in his car by Customs Officers. He stated that he had travelled from Malaga to look at leasing a local butcher shop. The Defendant's car was searched, and a number of items were x-rayed, including a vacuum sealing machine which was on the back seat of the car. The x-ray revealed the machine contained a number of packages.
The machine was opened and found to contain 20 heat sealed packages containing:
a. 287 grams of cocaine found in three separate bags which contained - i) 124 grams of cocaine at 81% purity, ii) 92 grams of cocaine at 61% purity and iii) 71 grams of cocaine at 67% purity
b. 8.745 kilograms of cannabis resin (93 bars) and
c. 1.48 grams of herbal cannabis.
The cocaine had a street value between £43,050 and £71,750. The cannabis had a street value between £186,000 and £279,000.
In interview, the Defendant maintained that he had travelled to the Island to lease a local butcher shop. He admitted that he had placed the machine on the back seat of his car and that his fingerprints would be on the outside of the machine but not the inside.
The Defendant's phones revealed that he had made several internet searches regarding the importation of drugs into the Island. A -˜deal list' was also found on one of his phones.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea, no previous convictions.
Previous Convictions:
No previous convictions.
Conclusions:
Count 1: |
Starting point 13 years' imprisonment. 8 years' imprisonment. |
Count 2: |
Starting point 5 years' imprisonment. 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total 8 years' imprisonment.
The Crown invites the Court to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized in this case under Article 29 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.
The Crown seeks a declaration of benefit in the sum of £244,160 and a confiscation order in the sum of £1.
In view of the likely sentence and the Defendant's financial situation the Crown does not seek any order for costs.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1: |
Starting point 13 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. |
Count 2: |
18 months' imprisonment (concurrent) |
Total 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
The sentences reflect the fact that the Defendant, through his counsel, acknowledged in open court that he had provided a witness statement to the police and confirmed his willingness to give evidence in accordance with his witness statement should there be a prosecution against anyone else.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized in this case under Article 29 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 ordered.
Declaration of benefit ordered in the sum of £244,160 and a confiscation order in the sum of £1 made.
No costs ordered.
A. M Harrison, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate I. C. Jones for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. You can sit down Mr Spencer. Now on the 10 April 2024 you sought to import 287 grams of cocaine and 8.75 kilos of cannabis into Jersey. You travelled from St Malo and the drugs were contained in a vacuum sealing machine which was on the back seat of your car. Just under one half of the cocaine (namely 124 grams), was at the very high purity level of 81%. The cocaine is valued between £43,000 and £71,000 and the cannabis between £186,000 and £279,000. You have said that the drug run was undertaken because you were in debt to drug dealers in Spain, where you live, and you felt obliged to import the drugs when told to do so by them. As the Court has repeatedly said however, threats from drug dealers or a desire to clear a drug debt does not afford any mitigation.
2. Now we have been referred, as one would expect, to the well-known case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 which suggests a starting point of 11 to 14 years for between 250 and 400 grams of cocaine, and the Crown takes a provisional starting point of 11 years for the 287 grams in this case.
3. We have also been referred to Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 which suggests a starting point of 2 to 6 years for between 1 and 10 kilos of cannabis. The Crown has suggested a provisional starting point of 5 years for the 8.75 kilos of cannabis in this case.
4. Where an offender imports substantial quantities of two different drugs, the case of Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383 suggests that the sentences should be made concurrent, but the sentence for the more serious offence should be uplifted to reflect the fact that there is another offence and another type of drug.
5. In addition, the case of Rimmer v AG indicts that it may be appropriate to increase the starting point where the degree of purity of the cocaine is over 75%, to reflect the fact that the consignment is likely to be adulterated or if not adulterated would do greater harm to those consuming the drug.
6. We think that the starting point of 11 years for the cocaine is correct, other than that we think there should be an increase to reflect the purity of part of the cocaine in this case, and we think the starting point therefore should be increased to 11.5 years.
7. We also consider there should be a Valler uplift, and we think this should be 2 years to reflect the very substantial amount of cannabis which was brought in at the same time. It follows that we think the starting point on Count 1, should be uplifted to 13.5 years.
8. However, Advocate Jones has put forward powerful mitigation on your behalf. His first point of course is that he refers to your guilty plea. The Crown accepts, and we agree, that there should be the full discount of one third which would take the sentence on Count 1 down to 9 years.
9. In addition, he has referred to other mitigation. First there is your good character, you are aged 50 and you have got no previous convictions. We have read the references from your family, and perhaps more significantly, we have read your letter of remorse and indeed we have seen a reference from the prison service as to how you are doing in prison and the progress you are making there.
10. You have a good employment record, and we have also read the contents of the Probation Report. Allowing for this further mitigation we would have imposed a sentence therefore of 7½ years' imprisonment on Count 1, were it not for the matter that we are going to turn to now.
11. You have given a witness statement to the police disclosing those involved in the importation and you have also confirmed to the police and through your advocate to us today that you are willing to give evidence for the prosecution in accordance with your witness statement should there be a prosecution against anyone else involved in this importation.
12. The Court has frequently made it clear that, where an offender is willing to give evidence against others involved in drug offences or other forms of assistance and is willing for that assistance to be acknowledged in open court, the Court will then give a significant additional discount from the sentence which would otherwise have been passed. That is for a number of reasons including in particular, to encourage others to behave in a similar way with a view to more drug dealers being successfully prosecuted. In this case, we accept that the assistance that you are willing to give is significant. We think that in all the circumstances of this case there should be a further discount of 50%.
13. It follows therefore, that the sentence we impose is as follows; can you stand up please.
(i) Count 1, which is the cocaine charge, the sentence is 3 years and 9 months.
(ii) Count 2, which is the cannabis, applying the similar process and discount we impose a sentence of 18 months, concurrent.
14. The total sentence is therefore, 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.,
15. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1990.
Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.
AG v Rice [2018] JRC 230B