Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC197

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

3^rd November, 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Thomas Lavin

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 3^rd October, 2003, following a guilty plea to:

 

2 counts 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 and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999.
	Count 1: MDMA.
	Count 2: cannabis resin.

 

 

Age:     52.

 

Details of Offence:

6.9 kilos cannabis resin (street value £40,000 odd) and 5,000 ecstasy tablets (street value £50,000).  Unsophisticated importation, drugs barely concealed in passenger area of car.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Importation effected for cancellation of debt (no details) and £1,500 reward.  Accused an inadequate depressive, easily recruited.

 

Previous Convictions:

Recidivist; record mainly comprised dishonesty.  No previous drugs convictions, although accused admitted regular use of cannabis.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment (13 years' starting point).
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment (concurrent).

 

Valler [2002/48] principle.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

These are the general sentences and observations.

 

Count 1:	7 years' imprisonment (12 years' starting point).
Count 2:	2½ years' imprisonment (concurrent).

 

 

C.E. Whelan, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N. Rive for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Lavin, you imported 6.9 kilos of cannabis with a street value of about £40,000 and 5,000 ecstasy tablets with a street value of about £50,000 concealed in a car.  You were a courier and you agreed to do this run in exchange for forgiveness of your debt and £1500.  You have an appalling record, having spent more of your adult life in prison than out of it and, according to the Drug & Alcohol Report, your longest period outside has been some two years.

2.        The first thing we have to do is fix on a starting point for the 5,000 ecstasy.  If that stood alone we would agree with the Crown that a starting point of eleven years was correct.  For the 6.9 kilos of cannabis, if that stood alone, given the range of two to six years for one to ten kilos, we think that, taking account of your role, the correct starting point for that would have been four years.  We then have to apply the principles set out in the case of Valler and we must increase the starting point for the ecstasy offence to take account of the cannabis offence but it is not a mathematical addition of the two starting points.  We think, bearing in mind all the submissions we have heard and the circumstances of the offence, that an addition of one year to the ecstasy starting point is correct so that makes an overall starting point of twelve years.

3.        In mitigation we take into account the guilty plea, the fact that you have no previous drugs convictions, amongst your many other convictions, that your marriage has broken up since you were last released from prison, and that you are now fifty-two and you have spent so much of your life in prison.  We accept what you say, that you didn't know it was ecstasy, but it is clear from Campbell that that is not a mitigating factor. 

4.        Baring in mind all these matters, we think the Crown has made the right overall deduction.  So, the sentence on count 1 is seven years' imprisonment, on count 2, making a roughly proportionate reduction, two and a half years concurrent so the total is seven years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

AG -v- Valler (28 February 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/48]

AG -v- Le Mière (25 March 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/68]

AG -v- Munro-Rourke (28 May 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/107]

Valler -v- AG (18 July 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/133]

AG -v- Bonnar and Noon [2001] JLR 626

AG -v- Campbell & Ors [1995] JLR 136