Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class B.

[2015]JRC262A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

16 December 2015

Before     :

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Nicolle, Olsen, Blampied, Ramsden, Thomas and Ronge.

The Attorney General

-v-

Emmanuel Yves Joel Halais

Emmanuel Gautier

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 30^th October, 2015, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Emmanuel Yves Joel Halais

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 and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  39.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Halais & Gautier, both of whom are French nationals, imported 58.4 kg of cannabis resin from Dinard by boat.  They were arrested as the brought the drugs ashore in Bouley Bay.  The cannabis had a potential street value of between £898,000 and £1,198,000 and a wholesale value of between £236,000 and £354,000. 

In interview, Halais claimed that an English stranger who he had met in a bar in Dinard asked him to transport the drugs to Jersey in return for a payment of between €5,000 and €10,000.  He said that he initially refused, but that on meeting the man by chance some weeks later he agreed.  Halais admitted that he recruited Gautier. 

Gautier admitted that he had agreed to assist Halais in the importation in return for between €5,000 and €10,000. 

The Crown regarded Halais as higher up the supply chain than Gautier. 

Details of Mitigation:

Crown: Guilty pleas.  Cooperation with the police (though Halais had attempted to minimise his involvement).  Halais was of previous good character and Gautier had only minor unrelated convictions.  Gautier suffered from depression at the time of the offence. 

Defence:  Halais - was initially unaware of quantity of drugs to be imported, courier only, remorse, out of character.   Gautier - initially refused to participate, remorse began whilst committing offence. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 11 years' imprisonment. 6½ years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the sums of £339.53.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Emmanuel Gautier

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 and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Halais above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Halais above.

Previous Convictions:

French convictions for six motoring offences and one theft offence. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 10½ years' imprisonment. 6 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

Starting point 10½ years' imprisonment. 5½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Recommendation for deportation made.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for Halais.

Advocate R. Morley-Kirk for Gautier.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are both to be sentenced today in respect of one count concerning the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, namely approximately 58.4 kilograms of cannabis resin, the wholesale value of between £236,000 and £354,000 and a street value of between £898,000 and £1.198,000.

2.        Your reasons for bringing these drugs to Jersey were simply to obtain money.  You each hoped to gain around €5,000 from this exercise; this is not a case in which you were coerced or pressured to do this.  It appears to have been for you both an entirely voluntary exercise for profit.

3.        We have read with care all of the letters that have been submitted to us from your families and from your friends and we appreciate that this appears to be out of character in that you, Halais, have no previous convictions and you, Gautier, have no previous conviction that we view as relevant.  We have noted all that has been said by your respective counsel on your behalf and we understand that this ill-judged action on your parts will have a profound effect on your lives and those of your families.

4.        Before proceeding to sentence we deal firstly with the Attorney General's application for confiscation from Halais.  This is not opposed and we accordingly declare that Halais has benefitted to the extent of £1,171.03 and order confiscation in the sum of £339.53 as sought by the Attorney General. 

5.        We turn now to sentence.  We have taken into account all of the papers that are before us. Halais, in our view, you had a greater role in this offence in that you organised important parts of this attempted importation.  We think the Crown's assessment of the starting point is correct and we accordingly proceed from the basis of a starting point of 11 years.  We also think the Crown has made all the appropriate deduction that it should in terms of the mitigation available to you and accordingly you are sentenced to 6½ years' imprisonment. 

6.        Gautier, we accept that played a lesser role but we think that the Crown's assessment of the starting point makes a sufficient distinction between the role that you played and that played by your co-accused and we therefore proceed from a starting point of 10½ years.  We think, however, that a greater allowance can be made for the personal mitigation available to you that we have seen in the documentation and the reports before us.  By a majority the Court feels that your sentence should be lower than that moved for by the Crown and you are sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment. 

7.        The Court orders the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

8.        In terms of deportation, we do not need to explain our reasons.  The appropriate test is well understood and appears in the case of AG-v-Camacho [2007] JLR 462.  It is not opposed.  We believe that the test is amply passed as to both of its limbs and we recommend that you are deported at the end of your sentences. 

Authorities

AG-v-Camacho [2007] JLR 462.

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Logan [2015] JRC 113.

AG-v-Brown [2008] JRC 208.

AG-v-O'Connor and others [2006] JRC 194.