Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/76

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

5^th April, 2002.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Pierre Benoît Lascoumes

 

 

1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs & Excise (Jersey) Law 1999:
	Count 1: herbal cannabis

 

 

Age:     39

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

Lascoumes was stopped whilst entering Jersey Airport on a flight from London and when searched he was found to have strapped to his body 18 packages containing herbal cannabis.  A further two packages were found under the inner soles of the shoes worn by Lascoumes.  The total quantity of herbal cannabis was 3,775.19 grams which had a street value of between £21,305 and £26,632.  The wholesale value was between £18,642 and £21,305.  The seizure represented 1,065 individual deals of one eighth of an ounce of the drug.  The Crown took as its starting point a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment.  The Crown acknowledged that Lascoumes had exceptional mitigation available to him due to his level of co-operation.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Lascoumes pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity but given the circumstances of his arrest such a plea was inevitable.  He was also of previous good character and therefore a first offender but the Crown commented that it was probably for this very reason that he was chosen for the purposes of the importation.  Lascoumes apologised for his involvement in the importation and therefore was entitled to credit for his remorse.

 

However the major and exceptional mitigation available to Lascoumes was his level of co-operation.  Following his arrest at the Airport, he indicated a willingness to co-operate with the Customs investigation and to assist the Customs Officers in following the original plan in the hope that others involved in this importation would be arrested.  Lascoumes identified the organiser of the importation who was a Jerseyman living in Bangkok.  This person had strapped the herbal cannabis to Lascoumes and Lascoumes was to contact him by telephone once he had safely arrived in Jersey.  Accommodation had been arranged for Lascoumes and once he had confirmed that he had arrived safely then someone who Lascoumes did not know would come to the Hotel and collect the drugs.  The organiser who was due to arrive in Jersey shortly thereafter would then pay Lascoumes.  Lascoumes had become indebted to a loan shark in Bangkok and had therefore agreed to undertake the importation for payment of U.S. $4,000.

 

With the assistance of Custom Officers the necessary telephone calls were made by Lascoumes.  Following a telephone call Lascoumes was advised that someone would come to collect the drugs and provide him with a quantity of spending money.  An individual did eventually arrive at the Hotel and the Customs Officer conducted a covert operation whereby dummy packages were handed over to this individual.  He was arrested but subsequently acquitted following a trial.  Even though Lascoumes did not know the identity of the person who was to come to collect the drugs, he did give evidence on behalf of the Prosecution at trial.

 

A letter of apology was handed to the Court and also there was a letter from Lascoumes' mother.  Lascoumes wished to return to Thailand where his partner still resided and she was excepting their first child.  She had had to move due to threats against her.  Lascoumes was also in fear of reprisals due to the level of co-operation.

 

Defence Counsel suggested that given the level of involvement of Lascoumes in the importation -Lascoumes not involved in the planning or subsequent distribution of the drugs - an appropriate starting point was lower than that suggested by the Crown.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

1 year's imprisonment; deportation to be recommended.

The Crown sought a Confiscation Order in the sum of £80.00.

The Crown also sought a recommendation from the Royal Court that upon completion of the term of imprisonment Lascoumes should be deported.

An Order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs was also sought.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Lascoumes had p[leaded guilty to being concerned in the importation of herbal cannabis.  He had agreed to carry approximately 4 kilos of herbal cannabis worth £26,000 and bring it to Jersey strapped to his body.  He had been stopped by the Customs Officers.  He was immediately co-operative and had expressed remorse and pleaded guilty.  The Court considered that the correct starting point having regard to the level of involvement and the quantity of drugs involved was 3 and a half years' imprisonment.  The guilty plea and other mitigation available would not have resulted in a substantial reduction in the starting point.  However, there was an exceptional and unusual element in this case in that the accused had identified and named the supplier in open Court.  The Court of Appeal in the case of Campbell-v- the Attorney General at page 144 stated:

 

"A substantial allowance may be expected where the defendant has identified his supplier or otherwise provided information which is of significant assistance to the authorities".

 

The Crown Advocate has followed that approach and we considered that the Conclusions moved for are right and we therefore grant them. We have read the letters and you have behaved very stupidly and criminally and therefore must be punished.  However, you have done everything in your power to make amends since.  You are therefore sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

 

On the issue of deportation you have been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for a serious offence.  We have considered whether your continuing presence in Jersey is in the interests of the community and we have concluded that it is not.  There are no personal circumstances negating against the making of a deportation order.  We therefore make the recommendation for your deportation upon conclusion of your term of imprisonment.

 

Prior to giving its judgment, the Royal Court granted a Confiscation Order in the sum of £80.00.

 

The Court ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

J. C. Gollop,Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.R.G. Deacon for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Lascoumes has pleaded guilty to one count of being concerned in the importation of herbal cannabis.  He agreed to carry 4 kilograms of cannabis valued at about £26,000 from Thailand to Jersey.  It was strapped to his body.

2.        On arrival at Jersey Airport, he was stopped by Customs Officers and the cannabis was detected.  Lascoumes was immediately co-operative with the Customs Officers, expressed his remorse for involving himself in the offence, and has pleaded guilty to the indictment.

3.        We think that the correct starting point, having regard to his involvement in this act of drug trafficking, and the amount of cannabis involved is one of 3½ years' imprisonment.  Ordinarily, the mitigation available to the accused, in terms of his co-operation and guilty plea, would have resulted in some reduction from that starting point, but nonetheless, a substantial sentence would have been imposed.

4.        There is, however, an exceptional and unusual element of further mitigation available to Lascoumes in that he was prepared not only to identify and name his supplier, but also to do so in open court and further more to give evidence against an alleged accomplice.  The Court of Appeal in Campbell & Ors-v-AG (1995) JLR136 Cof A stated at page 144:

"A substantial allowance may be expected where a defendant has identified his supplier or otherwise provided information which is of significant assistance to the authorities".

5.        The Crown Advocate has followed that approach and moved for 12 months' imprisonment.  We think that the conclusions are right and they are accordingly granted.

6.        Lascoumes, we have read the letter which you wrote to the Court, and the letter from your mother which was passed on.  You behaved stupidly, but you also behaved criminally, and we must accordingly punish you, but we accept that since being arrested you have done everything that could be done to make amends.  You are accordingly sentenced on the single count on the indictment to 12 months' imprisonment.

7.        We turn to the question of deportation.  The accused has been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment in relation to his conviction of a serious offence of being concerned in the importation of a substantial quantity of a herbal cannabis.  We have asked ourselves whether his continued presence in Jersey is not in the interests of the community.  We have no hesitation in answering that question in the affirmative.  There are no personal circumstances which would lead us not to make the recommendation.  We accordingly recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor that Lascoumes be deported from Jersey at the conclusion of his sentence.

8.        Finally we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Authorities

Immigration Act 1971.

Immigration (Jersey) Order 1953

R-v-Nazari (1980) 3 All ER 880

Campbell & Ors-v-AG (1995) JLR136 CofA