Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC032

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

17^th February, 2004.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

David Jarman Lloyd

Carol Ann Lloyd

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendants were remanded for sentence, following conviction by the Inferior Number on 5th June, 2003:

 

David Jarman Lloyd

 

1 count of:	Assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 17(1)(a) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 (count 4).
1 count of:	Assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking, by using the proceeds to acquire property by way of investment, contrary to Article 17(1)(b)(ii) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 (count 6).

 

Age:     60.

 

Plea:    Convicted on 5^th June, 2003, following a Not Guilty plea.

 

Details of Offence:

Michael O'Brien trafficked illegal drugs from UK (Portsmouth) to Jersey by hiding them amongst consignments of meat destined for his butcher business.

On 15^th September, 1998, O'Brien was arrested in Portsmouth and found to be in possession of 1001 grams of heroin and 10.1 kilograms of cannabis resin with a wholesale value of between £193,500 and £223,500.  Following his arrest 2,500 ecstasy tablets, nearly 5 kg amphetamine and 127 blocks of cannabis resin were found at his property.

During the period January 1997 to September 1998 substantial sums were paid into accounts under control of Mr O'Brien.  Substantial sums were also transferred out of the accounts, specifically £97,295 to Carol Lloyd's account and £50,475.51 to David Lloyd's account.  Some of those monies were then transferred from the Lloyds' accounts to the account of a Mr Dunne and some were used to buy a public house in Wiltshire.  The public house was purchased by Taiga Developments, a company controlled by the defendants and of which Carol Lloyd was a director.  Carol and David managed the public house.  Carol and David were arrested along with Michael and Yvonne O'Brien on 27 May, 2002.

 

Details of Mitigation:

No previous for drug trafficking.  No formal role in purchase of Pelican but hid behind his wife.

Handled not much less than Dunne.

Role in laundering at least as important as the other Defendants.

Not of previous good character.

Sufficiently serious to justify immediate long term custodial sentence.

Extremely poor health - cirrhosis of the liver and related complications.

Unlikely he had long to live, doctor estimates 3 months.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Two for fraud (1986 - served four years imprisonment), two for theft (1963-65) and one minor driving (2002).

 

Conclusions:

7 year starting point.

 

Count 4:	2 years' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.
Count 6:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent, suspended for 2 years.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Conclusions granted.

David Lloyd has terminal illness and his wife is his main carer.

 

Carol Ann Lloyd

 

1 count of:	Assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 17(1)(a) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 (count 3).
1 count of:	Assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking, by using the proceeds to acquire property by way of investment, contrary to Article 17(1)(b)(ii) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 (count 6).

 

Age:     53.

 

Plea:    Convicted on 5^th June, 2003, following a Not Guilty plea.

 

Details of Offence:

See David Lloyd, above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

David's primary carer.

No previous convictions.

Low risk of re-offence.

Low risk of harm.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

7 year starting point.

 

Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment, suspended.
Count 6:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent, suspended.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Conclusions granted.

David Lloyd has terminal illness and his wife is his main carer.

The remaining counts relate to co-defendants, Michael O'Brien, Yvonne Katina Edmond-O'Brien, and Michael Joseph Dunne, who were sentenced on 30th July, 2003.  See: [2003]JRC137A.

S.M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate R. Juste for David Jarman Lloyd and Carol Ann Lloyd.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE commissioner:

1.        In considering this matter we have ignored entirely the fact that Mr and Mrs Lloyd have had their applications for leave to appeal against conviction adjourned by the Appeal Court on the 10^th November, 2003, and that the Attorney General intends to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal against the decision of the Jersey Court of Appeal of that date to quash Mrs O'Brien's conviction.

2.        As far as this sentencing Court is concerned Mrs O'Brien has been acquitted and Mr O'Brien and Mr Dunne have been sentenced to 1 year and 5 years' imprisonment, respectively.  The delay in sentencing Mrs Lloyd and Mr Lloyd and the adjournment of their appeal is entirely due to the serious ill health of Mr Lloyd, and it is his terminal illness that has caused us most concern.

3.        This was by any stretch of the imagination a massive and sophisticated drug dealing business in which the Lloyds played an active part.  The Crown Advocate has made it very clear how serious and sophisticated the contribution of both the Lloyds was.  We have no doubt that the Crown Advocate is right when he said that the motive for this despicable business was profit and that Mr and Mrs Lloyd were willing volunteers at each time of asking both in Andorra, Spain, and England.

4.        We note that Mr and Mrs Lloyd were arrested on 27^th May, 2002.  Crown Advocate Baker has given us detailed explanations of how the appeals of O'Brien, Mrs O'Brien and Dunne were dealt with by the Court of Appeal and the Court has the strictures of that Court very clearly in mind.

5.        The judgments of the English courts on drug money laundering have been constructive and useful.  This was a small closely knit community of drug dealers and money launderers.  But as Dunne was given 7 years, the Court of Appeal made a starting point of about 7 years and with the mitigation available his sentence was reduced to 5 years.

6.        There are differences between Lloyd and Mrs Lloyd.  Mrs Lloyd has no criminal record and Mr Lloyd does.  We have carefully considered all the aspects of this troubling case.  As I have said Mr Lloyd has a terminal illness and when he leaves the London Hospital that is treating him he has a two hour journey to Berkshire where, it appears, Mrs Lloyd is his main carer.

7.        If the Criminal Justice (Suspension of Prison Sentences) (Jersey) Law 2003 is to take effect, we can only sentence for a maximum period of 2 years.

8.        We will start both the Lloyds at 7 years.  For the mitigation available to you Mrs Lloyd as a first offender we will deduct 3 years and for your husband, who is not here of course, we would deduct 2 years.  That would have meant you going to prison for 4 years, and your husband for 5 years.  That in our view would be entirely merited and consistent with the decision taken over your fellow criminals.  However, the exceptional act of mercy that we apply and which arises out of the particular facts of this case is that you will each serve a sentence of 2 years which under the law we are able to suspend and we so do.

9.        I have to tell you, Mrs Lloyd, under the Law, that if either of you commit any act which is liable to imprisonment during the next 2 years then the sentence will no longer be suspended.

Authorities

R -v- O' Meally and Morgan. (1994) 15 Cr. App. R.(S) 831

R -v Greenwood (1995) 16 Cr. App. R (S) 614.

R -v- Simpson & Ors [1998] Cr. App. (s) 112.

Criminal Justice (Suspension of Prison Sentences) (Jersey) Law 2003.