Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC187

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

1^st November, 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Richard Kendrick,

Nicholas Ayers,

Kevin Philip Patrick Mooney,

Scott Andrew McLean Sumner.

 

Richard Kendrick

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 9^th July, 2004, following Guilty pleas to the following charges:

 

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:     36.

 

Details of Offence:

Kendrick drove a car containing a little under 29½ kilos of cannabis resin and 3,875 ecstasy tablets onto a ferry going to Jersey.  The car had been modified to allow the drugs to be carried in the front and rear bumpers.  He telephoned Ayers, who was then in Liverpool, both before boarding and after disembarking from the ferry.  After speaking to Kendrick upon his arrival in Jersey, Ayers telephoned Mooney in Jersey.  Upon disembarking from the ferry, Kendrick drove the car to the Monterey Hotel in St Helier.  Shortly afterwards, Mooney went to the Hotel de France and made a booking for Ayers to stay the following night under a false name.  Later the same evening Kendrick telephoned Ayers and confirmed that Ayers was travelling to Jersey the next day.  Several minutes later, Sumner and Mooney arrived at the Monterey Hotel.  Mooney went into the hotel and a few minutes later he and Kendrick came back out.  They became engaged in animated conversation and on one occasion looked in Kendrick's car boot.  Kendrick returned to the hotel.  Mooney and Sumner got into Kendrick's car and Sumner drove it to Mooney's home.  It was during this car journey that Mooney told Sumner for the first time that the car contained drugs.  The car stopped and Sumner got out.  Shortly later, he got back in again and continued the journey as intended.  When they arrived at Mooney's home, Sumner's Switch card and e-mail address were used to book a flight over the internet for Ayers to travel from Birmingham to Jersey the next morning.  Mooney telephoned Ayers to tell him that this travel booking had been made on his behalf.  A little later, around 10.00 pm, Mooney went out.  He came back with a bag containing over £62,000 in cash.  The next morning, Ayers arrived in Jersey.  He made his way to Mooney's address.  All defendants were arrested shortly thereafter.

Following Sumner's arrest, his home address was searched.  A small piece of cannabis resin weighing 253 milligrams was discovered.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; no previous convictions; good references; had experienced a traumatic event in a previous job.

 

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment: (14 years' starting point).
Count 2:	8 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	7 years' imprisonment: (13 years' starting point).
Count 2:	7 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Nicholas Ayers

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 13^th September, 2004, following conviction by the Inferior Number, en police correctionnelle on Not Guilty pleas 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) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999. Count 1:  MDMA Count 2:  Cannabis resin.

 

Age:     41

 

Details of Offence:

See Kendrick.

 

Details of Mitigation:

No relevant previous convictions; good references; had shown himself to be  hard-working by embarking on some courses of education while in prison; other mitigation.

 

Previous Convictions:

1 offence against the person.

1 offence against property.

7 theft and kindred offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	6 years' imprisonment: (16 years' starting point).
Count 2:	6 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	6 years' imprisonment: (15 years' starting point).
Count 2:	6 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Kevin Philip Patrick Mooney

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 9^th July, 2004, following Guilty pleas to the following charges:

 

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) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999. Count 1:  MDMA Count 2:  Cannabis resin.

 

 

Age:     29.

 

Details of Offence:

See Kendrick

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; no previous convictions; had taken steps in prison to conquer alcohol problem; letter of remorse; good references; had experienced a traumatic even in a previous job.

 

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	9 years' imprisonment: (15 years' starting point).
Count 2:	9 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment: (14 years' starting point).
Count 2:	8 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Scott Andrew McLean Sumner

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 10^th September, 2004, following Guilty pleas to the following charges:

 

2 counts of:	Being knowingly concerned in supplying a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 3:  MDMA. Count 4:  Cannabis resin.
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Count 5:  Cannabis resin.

 

[On 10^th September, 2004, the Crown accepted Not Guilty please to counts 1 and 2 of the indictment].

 

Age:     22.

 

Details of Offence:

See Kendrick.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; youth; no relevant previous convictions.

 

Previous Convictions:

1 offence against the person.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment: (7 years' starting point).
Count 4:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment: concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 3:	2 years' imprisonment: (4 years' starting point).
Count 4:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 5:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

 

 

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

Advocate P. Landick for R. Kendrick

Advocate R. Juste for N. Ayers.

Advocate J. Bell for K.P.P. Mooney.

Advocate L. Springate for S.A.M. Sumner.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Kendrick, Ayers and Mooney were involved with the importation of some 29 kilos of cannabis resin with a street value of some £172,000 and 3,875 ecstasy tablets with a street value in the region of £38,000 concealed in two metal boxes welded behind the front and rear bumpers of a car driven to Jersey by Kendrick. They were caught as a result of a surveillance operation.  Ayers and Kendrick are the Liverpool end and Mooney is the Jersey end.

2.        Ayers was responsible for overseeing the operation from the Liverpool end.  He flew to Jersey to pick up the £60,000 as payment or part payment for the drugs.  Kendrick was the courier.  Mooney was responsible at the Jersey end; he received the drugs which were concealed in the car and procured the £60,000 cash which was to be paid to Ayers.

3.        Sumner's part was much less.  He only learned of the presence of the drugs whilst in fact in the car with Mooney, and he therefore has pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of being knowingly concerned in the supply of the drugs.

4.        The first issue we must consider is the starting points.  We have been referred to the leading case of Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. [2001]JLR626 that gives a 10 - 13 year bracket for 2,500 - 4,000 tablets.  In this case we are dealing with 3,875 ecstasy tablets, and because of the involvement of the cannabis, we must also in accordance with the case of Valler -v- AG [2002] JLR383 decide how much any starting point should be uplifted to reflect the existence of the cannabis.  If it stood alone the cannabis would have had a starting point in the 6 - 10 year bracket for 10 - 30 kilos.  We will deal with each defendant in turn. 

5.        So far as Ayers is concerned, the Crown says the nature and scale of the operation and his role suggests a starting point of 13 years on the ecstasy charge; in relation to the cannabis they would have taken a 10 year starting point.  Applying Valler, they, therefore, say that the Court should add 3 years to make a total starting point of 16 years.  We agree with the level of starting point in relation to the ecstasy charge if taken on its own, but we think that an application of Valler suggests an increase of only 2, years particularly if one compares it with the increase in Valler itself of 2 years for 5,000 ecstasy tablets.  Accordingly we think the correct starting point for Ayers is 15 years.

6.        In mitigation there was no plea of guilty, but there were no relevant previous convictions.  The reports say there is a low risk of re-offending.  He is a hard working family man and there are references.  We have read carefully the Social Enquiry Report and note his conduct in prison.  We have had regard to all the mitigation that appears from the papers.

7.        Ayers, our decision is that the Crown's conclusions are correct, notwithstanding, the fact that we have dropped the starting point by one year and therefore, the sentence in your case is 6 years' concurrent on each count.

8.        We turn next to Kendrick.  He was the courier; the Crown sets a starting point of 14 years in this case to take account of both charges.  We think the Crown has been correct in its assessment of the relative roles of the three accused by dropping the starting point one year in each case. Therefore, in accordance with our decision in Ayers, we think the correct starting point for Kendrick is 13 years.

9.        In mitigation Kendrick has no previous convictions.  He has pleaded guilty.  He has a cocaine addiction coupled with a drinking addiction which has led to debts.  We have read carefully all the reports, the Social Enquiry Report, the Drug and Alcohol Service, the Psychological and the Psychiatric Reports and we very much hope that Kendrick will maintain the progress in prison that he seems to be making recently.

10.      We have also read carefully the references concerning his work in the U.S. and elsewhere and this shows a good side to his character.  In our judgment the correct sentence in your case is one of 7 years' imprisonment, concurrent on each count.

11.      Mooney played a key rôle at the Jersey end.  The Crown puts his level of involvement between that of Ayers and Kendrick and we agree.  We, therefore, take a starting point of 14 years.

12.      In mitigation he has pleaded guilty, he has no previous convictions, he too has a drink problem and we are pleased to see that you have realised the problem in prison and are determined to conquer it.  We have read carefully the Social Enquiry Report and the Drug and Alcohol Report and we have read your letter of remorse and the references.  

13.      In your case taking into account all that mitigation the sentence we impose is one of 8 years' imprisonment, concurrent on each account.

14.      In the case of Sumner, he has pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in supplying, and as the case of A.G. -v- Antunes and others [2003]JLR144 has made clear the Rimmer guidelines do not necessarily apply; it depends on the level of involvement in the supply.  Here the Crown says the correct starting point is 7 years'.  We think that is too high.  The involvement here was really very little.  It involved continuing to drive rather than getting out there and then once he discovered there were drugs in the car; and allowing his credit card to be used for the booking of Ayers' flight.  We think the correct starting point for this very limited involvement is one of 4 years.

15.      In mitigation Sumner pleaded guilty.  He is only 22.  He has only one previous conviction for a different type of offence.  We have read carefully the reports, including the psychiatric report.  Taking account of all the mitigation three Jurats would exceptionally have imposed a non-custodial sentence of probation and 240 hours community service; three, on the other hand, consider that two years is required because of the seriousness of the supply of this quantity of drugs and the need to make it clear that even a small degree of involvement is likely to result in custody where this amount of drugs is being supplied with the consequent damage that it can do to the young people in the Island.  Given that the Court is split, I consider that the reasoning of the latter group of Jurats is to be preferred.

16.      The sentence of the Court is one of 2 years' imprisonment on the two counts of supply, one month, concurrent, on the possession.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Bonnar & Noon -v- A.G. [2001]JLR626.

Campbell & Ors -v- A.G. [1995] JLR136.

Valler -v- A.G. [2002] JLR383.

A.G. -v- Antunes [2003]JLT144.

Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001]JLR373.

Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999: Article 61.

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Articles 5 and 6.