Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/230

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

14^th November 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Anthony Christopher Mason.

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 19^th October, 2001, following a guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999; Count 1: MDMA.

 

Age:     20

 

Details of Offence: 

Mason was stopped by a customs officer following his arrival from Gatwick Airport.  His suitcase was searched and two pots of hair gel removed from it.  Mason said nothing but when the customs officer discovered a cellophane wrapped package in one of the pots of gel, Mason proclaimed that the pots were not his and that he had not put them in the suitcase.  Each pot contained a cellophane wrapped package and the packages held a total of 846 ecstasy tablets.  The tablets had a street value of between £10,152 and £12,690 and a wholesale of between £5,076 and £8,460.  Mason continued to deny all knowledge of the drugs during his question and answer interview and reserved his plea when he first appeared in the Magistrate's Court although he changed his plea to guilty following legal advice on the next occasion he appeared.                

 

Details of Mitigation:

Mason was aged 20 years and so fell within the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.  He had no previous convictions of relevance.  He had pleaded guilty and was remorseful.  He had merely acted as a courier out of naivety and stupidity.   

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

4 years' Youth Detention.

Having regard to the quantity of ecstasy tablets imported and accepting that Mason had not planned the importation but had been the mere instrument of it, the Crown proposed a starting point for sentence of 8 years' youth detention in keeping with the guideline decision of the Court of Appeal in Bonnar and Noon -v- AG (26^th October, 2001) Jersey Unreported.  Having particular regard to the accused's age, lack of any prior convictions of relevance and the plea of guilty, albeit that that plea was inevitable in the circumstances of the case, the Crown sought a sentence of 4 years' youth detention.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court observed that this was a commercial importation both in terms of the quantity of drugs concerned and motivation.  The accused had initially declined an offer of £750 to import the drugs, eventually being persuaded to do so for the figure of £1,500.  The Crown's starting point of 8 years' youth detention was accepted.  Taking into consideration the significant mitigation, the Crown's conclusions would be granted and Mason was sentenced to a term of 4 years' youth detention and an order was made for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

A.D. Robinson, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.J. Chapman for the accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE commissioner:

1.        Mason is indicted as a young offender - he is twenty years old - for importation of 846 ecstasy tablets with a street value of between £10,152 and £12,690.  That is a wholesale value of between £5,076 and £8,460.  This was a commercial importation and its importance to those men, who have not been identified, in Hitchen who set up the deal can be demonstrated by the fact that the initial offer of a reward of £750 was later increased to £1,500.  The temptation to a young man with no qualifications with a poor work record, who wished to settle down with his then girlfriend, was irresistible.  It appears that his girlfriend was, herself, a user of class A drugs and that the men who set up the deal were friends, if that is the word, of the girlfriend. 

2.        When Mason arrived in Jersey from Gatwick on 26^th August he was stopped by customs officers.  He said he was visiting a friend.  The drugs were found after a search of his luggage in two pots of hair gel, wrapped in cellophane.  Mason continued to deny any knowledge of the drugs at interview.  He eventually pleaded guilty at his second appearance in the Magistrate's Court on 19^th October. 

3.        In reaching a starting point for this case the Crown has had regard to the three guideline Court of Appeal judgments in Campbell (1995), Rimmer (19^th July 2001) and Bonnar (26^th October 2001).  The Bonnar case clarifies the Campbell guidelines for trafficking in tablet form drugs, such as ecstasy tablets found here.  In part of its judgment the Court of Appeal said that:

 Sentencing should be based on the number of tablets, capsules, or other units, irrespective of the purity of the drugs in the particular units, except where the degree of purity is very high, or where, for example, there were dangerous impurities in the drugs which, of themselves, would be likely to endanger the lives, or health of users.

4.        For the quantity found in Mason's possession the Court of Appeal gives a starting point of between eight and ten years.  But Mason, because of his age, is to be sentenced to youth detention.  The Court of Appeal made it very clear, in the case of Rimmer that the part played by the accused is important.  Mason was a courier, of course, and if there were no couriers there would not be the drug problem that exists in this small island today.  Nevertheless, he is no more than a courier.  His youth, his lack of any previous drug offences and his plea of guilty must make for a reduction in the starting point. 

5.        We have carefully considered all the letters that Mr. Chapman submitted to us as part of his careful address.  We have no doubt that Mason has been naïve and stupid and that he was not involved in the planning of this drugs operation.  The Court of Appeal said in Rimmer, in referring to the words of the Attorney General:

He referred to the facts in Fogg, as set out in the extracts from Campbell we have quoted, and submitted that most of these facts, if relevant at all to sentencing, went to mitigation only and not to the determination of a starting-point.  This went hand in hand with his submission that the weight or dosage of Class A drugs should be the only or almost the only factor to be used in deciding on a starting-point.  As will appear, this Court does not consider that weight or dosage, important factor though that is, can be the sole factor in relation to the starting point.  Factors in Fogg such as the defendant's immediate sale of drugs after arrival in the island, showing that the drugs had been brought to Jersey as part of a pre-arranged plan, and the role of the defendant in the relevant drug trafficking, are likely to be relevant when deciding where, in the band of starting points appropriate to the amount of drugs trafficked in, the particular case should be placed.

6.        We believe that the starting point, having regard to Campbell and Rimmer and Bonnar is eight years' youth detention, but there is, as we have said, much mitigation.  If the Crown is right, in its starting point of eight years' and we have no reason to disagree with it, then a reduction to four years', in our view, is as generous as this Court can allow.  Mr. Mason, I am bound under the law to tell you that we regard the importation of this amount of drugs and its consequences to the island as so serious that only a term of youth detention can follow from the offence.  I will say this: you must have realised, when you were offered £1,500, that a large amount of drugs were to be hidden in your luggage.  We have no alternative, although we regret having to do so, but to sentence you to four years' youth detention and to tell you that you may be liable to supervision when you are released  and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  

 

Authorities

Campbell and Ors. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

Rimmer and Ors. -v- AG (19^th July 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/148]

Bonnar and Noon -v- AG  (26^th October 2001) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2001/212]