Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/67

9 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

22^nd March, 2001

 

Before:   M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

                                         Jurats Myles, de Veulle, Quérée, Bullen, Allo.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Craig Lee Forrester;

Lee Michael Sumner;

William Sebastian Sefton-Ullmer.

 

 

Sentence by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 22^nd February, 2001, after entering guilty pleas to the following counts:

 

Craig Lee FORRESTER

 

First Indictment (by himself)

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    Count 1: ecstasy.

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    Count 2: cannabis.

 

Third Indictment (with the second and third Defendants)

 

2 counts of:  assault (counts 1, 2).

 

Age:     27.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

First Indictment

 

The police found 56 ecstasy tablets on Forrester which had a street value of £672-£840 and a wholesale value of £336-£560.  A small quantity of cannabis was also found on the accused with a value of £10.  The accused was very uncooperative and used an alias and gave a false address.  He was violent at the time of his arrest and when interviewed maintained the drugs had been planted on him.  The accused shouted and swore in the Magistrate's Court for which he received 7 days' imprisonment for contempt; he then spat at police officers in the same Court and was sentenced to 7 days' imprisonment for this offence.  Forrester has an appalling record with over 60 previous convictions, including 3 for possession of cannabis.

 

Third Indictment

 

This offence related to an incident in the prison dining room in which 26 inmates and 3 prison officers were present.  Forrester had thrown a plateful of food at an officer and later punched another officer.  Sumner punched an officer and Sefton-Ullmer punched another officer, causing the officer's glasses to fall and break.  All three accused had been drinking home brewed alcohol; this incident occurred in a crowded area which could have led to a riot; all three denied offences when interviewed but pleaded guilty in Magistrate's Court.  Forrester had an appalling record with over 60 previous convictions, including two for assaulting police officers.  Sumner also had an appalling record with over 40 previous convictions including two assaults against police officers and 5 other criminal assaults.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

First Indictment

 

Forrester's guilty plea which was particularly relevant re intent to supply.  There were no previous convictions for possession with intent to supply or the supply.

 

Third Indictment

 

No lasting injuries were sustained.  This was not as serious as the Letchford case, where a cup of boiling liquid was thrown at an officer; and was not premeditated.  Forrester's aunt had died and he had just found out that his girlfriend had started a relationship with his best friend; he had made a verbal apology; had spent 6 weeks in the punishment block; and had experienced a very difficult childhood.

 

Conclusions:

 

First Indictment:

 

Count 1: 5 years' imprisonment;

Count 2: 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Third Indictment:

 

Count 1:   18 months' imprisonment;

Count 2:   6 months' imprisonment (concurrent, but consecutive to sentences moved for on First Indictment).

TOTAL:  6½ years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

First Indictment:

 

Count 1:   5 years' imprisonment;

Count 2:   6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Third Indictment

 

Count 1:   12 months' imprisonment;

Count 2:   12 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to sentences passed on First Indictment.

TOTAL:  6 years' imprisonment.

 

Lee Michael SUMNER

 

Second Indictment (with third Defendant)

 

2 counts of:  being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition of the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs & Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:

                    Count 1: diamorphine;

                    Count 3: cocaine.

 

2 counts of:  possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    Count 2: diamorphine;

                    Count 4: cocaine.

 

Third Indictment (with first and third Defendants)

 

1 count of:   assault (count 3).

 

Age:    30.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Second Indictment

 

Both Sumner and Forrester had come to Jersey from Gatwick.  Police went to the hotel and discovered drugs in their room which consisted of 23 grams of heroin with a street value of between £7,000-£10,000; 2.41 grams cocaine with a street value of £192; and 14.2 grams of psilocin (which was enough for 26 doses) value not known.  These were significant quantities but allowing for the extent of the two accuseds' drugs use, Crown accepted this was for personal use.  Sumner had a very bad record with over 40 previous convictions, including one for possession of heroin.

 

Third Indictment

 

This offence related to an incident in the prison dining room in which 26 inmates and 3 prison officers were present.  Forrester had thrown a plateful of food at an officer and later punched another officer.  Sumner punched an officer and Sefton-Ullmer punched another officer, causing the officer's glasses to fall and break.  All three accused had been drinking home brewed alcohol; this incident occurred in a crowded area which could have led to a riot; all three denied offences when interviewed but pleaded guilty in Magistrate's Court.  Forrester had an appalling record with over 60 previous convictions, including two for assaulting police officers.  Sumner also had an appalling record with over 40 previous convictions including two assaults against police officers and 5 other criminal assaults.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Second Indictment

 

Sumner's early guilty pleas; he was emotionally disturbed and had a difficult background; he had confessed to importation.

 

Third Indictment

 

No lasting injuries were sustained.  This was not as serious as the Letchford case, where a cup of boiling liquid was thrown at an officer; and was not premeditated.  Forrester had started the incident; Sumner's timely guilty plea; his remorse; he had apologised; and this was considered to be only peripheral involvement.

 

Conclusions:

 

Second Indictment

 

Count 1:   4½ years' imprisonment;

Count 2:   2 years' imprisonment, concurrent;

Count 3:   18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 4:   6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Third Indictment

 

Count 3:   15 months' imprisonment, consecutive to sentences moved for on Second Indictment.

TOTAL:  5 years' 9 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Second Indictment

 

Count 1:   4½ years' imprisonment;

Count 2:   2 years' imprisonment, concurrent;

Count 3:   18 months' imprisonment, concurrent;

Count 4:   6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Third Indictment

 

Count 3:   12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to sentences passed on Second Indictment.

TOTAL:  5½ years' imprisonment.

 

William Sebastian SEFTON-ULLMER

 

Second Indictment (with second Defendant)

 

2 counts of:  being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition of the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:

Count 5: cocaine;

Count 8: psilocin.

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    Count 6: cocaine;

 

1 count of:   producing a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    Count 7: crack cocaine.

 

Third Indictment (with first and second Defendants)

 

1 count of:   assault (count 4);

1 count of:   malicious damage (count 5).

 

Age:    26.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Second Indictment

 

Both Sumner and Forrester had come to Jersey from Gatwick.  Police went to the hotel and discovered drugs in their room which consisted of 23 grams of heroin with a street value of between £7,000-£10,000; 2.41 grams cocaine with a street value of £192; and 14.2 grams of psilocin (which was enough for 26 doses) value not known.  These were significant quantities but allowing for the extent of the two accuseds' drugs use, Crown accepted this was for personal use.

 

Third Indictment

 

This offence related to an incident in the prison dining room in which 26 inmates and 3 prison officers were present.  Forrester had thrown a plateful of food at an officer and later punched another officer.  Sumner punched an officer and Sefton-Ullmer punched another officer, causing the officer's glasses to fall and break.  All three accused had been drinking home brewed alcohol; this incident occurred in a crowded area which could have led to a riot; all three denied offences when interviewed but pleaded guilty in Magistrate's Court.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Second Indictment

 

This accused had a lesser record than the other two; he had made an early guilty plea; he was a home owner and was in danger of losing this; he had a good employment record.

 

Third Indictment

 

No lasting injuries were sustained.  This was not as serious as the Letchford case, where a cup of boiling liquid was thrown at an officer; and was not premeditated.  He had minimal previous convictions; a good employment record; had agreed to pay for officer's broken glasses at a cost of £504; had shown remorse; his was a secondary involvement; and he had spent 5 weeks in punishment block.

 

Conclusions:

 

Second Indictment

 

Count 5:   15 months' imprisonment;

Count 6:   6 months' imprisonment, concurrent;

Count 7:   12 months' imprisonment, concurrent;

Count 8:   15 months' imprisonment, concurrent;

 

Third Indictment

 

Count 4:   15 months' imprisonment;

Count 5:   6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to sentences moved for on Second Indictment.

TOTAL:  2 years' 6 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Second Indictment

 

Count 5:   15 months' imprisonment;

Count 6:   6 months' imprisonment, concurrent;

Count 7:   12 months' imprisonment, concurrent;

Count 8:   15 months' imprisonment, concurrent;

 

Third Indictment

 

Count 4:   9 months' imprisonment;

Count 5:   9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to sentences passed on Second Indictment.

TOTAL:  2 years' imprisonment.

 

 

S.E. Fitz, Crown Advocate;

Advocate G.S. Robinson for C.L. Forrester;

Advocate D. Gilbert for L.M. Sumner;

Advocate N.J. Chapman for W.S. Sefton-Ullmer.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            On 29^th October the defendant, Forrester, was found in possession of the equivalent of 56 ecstasy tablets in licensed premises.  He has admitted an intention to supply.  That forms the basis of the first indictment.

 

2.            On 21^st October, the defendants, Sumner and Sefton-Ullmer came to Jersey.  Their hotel room was searched a matter of hours after they arrived and a quantity of drugs were found.  Although they travelled together, the Crown has charged them individually for certain of the drugs found and we therefore pass sentence on that basis.

 

3.            Sumner admits to importing 23.9 grams of heroin with a street value of between £7,000 and £10,000 and also to importing 2.4 grams of cocaine, a personal amount with a value of £192.

 

4.            Despite this very substantial amount of heroin and the fact that it appears from the social enquiry report that Sumner had a drug debt of some £5,000 before he came, the Crown is willing to accept that the importation of this heroin was for Sumner's personal use.  Accordingly in accordance with that concession and with the case of Gregory -v- AG (15^th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported CofA, the Court approaches the sentence on the basis that the heroin was for the defendant's own use.

 

5.            Sefton-Ullmer admits to importation of the same 2.4 grams of cocaine and also 14.22 grams of psilocin.  This is a Class A drug and apparently that is enough for some 26 doses.  He also pleaded guilty to producing crack cocaine from the cocaine and the heroin which had been imported.

 

6.            The only connection between Forrester and the other two defendants and the reason which has led to them all being sentenced together is that all three face a third indictment which arises out of a mêlée which took place whilst the defendants were on remand at La Moye Prison.  It appears that a number of the inmates had been drinking some 'hooch' homemade brew.  The Court cannot but express its concern that this should be possible and we understand that the prison is looking into the position and we hope that it can be satisfactorily addressed.

 

7.            At the evening meal some 26 inmates were supervised by three officers.  Forrester threw a plate of food which landed on one of the officers.  When other officers moved to restrain him, a general mêlée developed in the course of which Forrester punched one officer on the face, splitting the officer's lip.  Sumner hit an officer on the cheek causing bruising and Sefton-Ullmer pulled an officer so that they both fell to the ground and whilst on the ground he punched the officer in the face, breaking his glasses.  Reinforcements then arrived and order was restored.

 

8.            As to these offences the Court would repeat what was said in the case of AG -v- Letchford (6^th September, 2000) Jersey Unreported:

 

"The Court takes a very serious view of those who assault police or prison officers, who are doing their duty, particularly if a weapon is used.  Such officers are entitled to look to the Court for protection in the difficult task which they undertake."

 

9.            We are quite satisfied that any sentence for these offences must be consecutive to those for the drug offences so as to ensure that there is real punishment for the violence shown towards the prison officers.

 

10.        We will now consider each of the defendants in turn and we take first Forrester.  He has an appalling record with a number of convictions for violence and dishonesty and three previous convictions for possession of Class B drugs.  The Crown has moved for 5 years on the first indictment and 18 months on the third indictment.

 

11.        In mitigation, in relation to the drug offences, counsel has urged that there was a guilty plea here which was of value in relation to the intention to supply so that more credit should have been given.  Miss Robinson pointed out that the defendant has no previous convictions for supply or possession with intent to supply and she pointed to various other matters.  However, we believe that the starting point of 7 years was correct and that adequate discount was made by the Crown for the available mitigation.

 

12.        In relation to the assault counsel has urged that this was not premeditated, it came on a difficult day for Forrester; he had shortly before heard of the death of an aunt to whom he was very close and on that day he had heard that his girlfriend had formed a relationship with his best friend.

 

13.        Counsel also urged that the case was much less serious than that of Letchford where boiling water was thrown at a female prison officer.  Miss Robinson further pointed out that the defendant has already suffered through being placed in the punishment block and we have had our attention drawn to the English case of R. -v- Wood [2001] All ER (D) 81 (Mar) where a prisoner who punched an officer was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment.  However we are cautious of placing too much weight on other cases of that nature.  Nevertheless we are satisfied that, despite the importance of supporting prison officers in their difficult duty, this case is less serious than that of Letchford and the actual nature of the assault by each defendant was less serious.  In the circumstances we think that a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment on the assault charge in the case of Forrester is correct.

 

14.        Finally, we have had regard to the totality principle and we have stood back to see whether the total is too much but we concluded that, as we have amended it, it is not.  Forrester, on the first indictment, on count 1, you are sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment; on count 2, 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  On the third indictment, on count 1, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment; on count 2, 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the sentence on the other indictment making a total of 6 years' imprisonment.

 

15.        We turn now to Sumner.  He, too, has an extremely poor record with a number of offences for assault and also one previous conviction for possession of heroin.  Here, the Crown on the drug indictment, has taken a starting point of 6 years for the major offence, and it has done so on the basis of the case of Gregory -v- AG (15^th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported CofA.  However, we note that in Gregory the amount of heroin involved was approximately one-third of that in this case and we think that the correct starting point for the volume of drugs here is one of 7 years.  We then turn to the mitigation in relation to that.  We accept that it was for personal use and the defendant had come to Jersey in an attempt to wean himself off drugs.

 

16.        Counsel has urged that the guilty plea on the importation charge was of value for which the normal discount should be given.  Miss Gilbert has further pointed out that there is only one previous conviction for a drug offence of possession and we have also been referred to the social enquiry report and the various matters disclosed therein.  In the round we think that greater discount can be given for the available mitigation than was given by the Crown and we think that in total a discount of 2½ years is appropriate.

 

17.        As to the assault, we see no reason to draw a distinction between what was done by Sumner and what was done by Forrester and their previous records are not so very dissimilar, therefore we think the correct sentence is 12 months.  The sentences are as follows: on the second indictment, on count 1, you are sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment; on count 2, 2 years' imprisonment; on count 3, 18 months; on count 4, 6 months, all of those to be concurrent making a total of 4½ years' imprisonment.  On the third indictment, on count 3, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the other indictment, making a total of 5½ years and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

18.        Finally, we come to Sefton-Ullmer.  His record, by comparison, is extremely minor; he has one previous conviction for an assault for which he was placed on probation and one for possession of cannabis.  The Crown has moved for 15 months in relation to the drug offences and 15 months in relation to the assault, making a total of 2½ years.  In mitigation Mr. Chapman has urged the limited nature of the importation in Sefton-Ullmer's case and has relied upon his comparatively minor previous record as compared with the other two accused.  He has urged that the guilty plea and the other matters referred to in the social enquiry report be taken into account, showing that this defendant was making efforts to lead a more orderly life, but has been set back by his dependency on drugs.  That is the case of course with the other defendants also.  We think that the Crown has made adequate discount in relation to the drug offences.

 

19.        In relation to the assault, although the part played by Sefton-Ullmer was not dissimilar to that of the others, we note that he has made an offer of compensation and we are satisfied that he is indeed remorseful for what took place.  Taking that into account and the comparatively limited previous record, we think we can distinguish his case slightly to the extent that the correct sentence for the assault is 9 months' imprisonment.

 

20.        In summary, on the second indictment, on count 5, you are sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment; on count 6, 6 months; on count 7, 12 months; count 8, 15 months; all of those to be concurrent, making a total of 15 months' imprisonment.  On the third indictment, on count 4, you are sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment; on count 5, 9 months' concurrent, but consecutive to sentences passed on the second indictment, making a total of 2 years' imprisonment.  Furthermore, we make a compensation order in the sum of £504.90 with 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

Gregory -v- A.G. (15^th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported CofA.

 

A.G. -v- Letchford (6^th September, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

R. -v- Wood [2001] All ER (D) 81 (Mar).