Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A and Class B

[2019]JRC125

Royal Court

(Samedi)

1 July 2019

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats  Olsen, Pitman, Christensen, Hughes and Grime

The Attorney General

-v-

Daryl Richard France

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 5^th April, 2019, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

3 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 (Counts 1, 2 and 3)

Age:  28.  

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The defendant travelled from Portsmouth on the Condor Clipper on 25^th January, 2019, arriving at Elizabeth Harbour Ferry Terminal in a Ford Mondeo, accompanied by his 21 year-old girlfriend.  On arrival the vehicle was stopped by a Customs Officer.  The defendant said he was a self-employed tattoo artist trying to sell equipment to local tattoo parlours and that they were staying in the Island for just one night.  While checking the vehicle a drug detector dog showed interest in the spare wheel.  The tyre was cut open and inside was found 87·16 grams of cocaine, 1949·31 grams of cannabis resin and 1862·89 grams of herbal cannabis, with an estimated total street value of £73,000 to £94,000.  The defendant initially gave 'no comment' answers during interview, but later admitted knowledge of the drugs, claiming that he had been forced to undertake the importation following threats to his well-being and that of his family.  The defendant claimed to have been a drug user in the past and, although 'clean' for 18 months, he said that he still owed his dealer £400, which debt would have been cleared by undertaking the importation.  The defendant absolved his girlfriend of any involvement and expressed remorse for having had her accompany him on the journey.

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant had the benefit of guilty pleas, first indicated before the Magistrate and confirmed on Indictment, for which he deserved full credit.  He had no relevant previous convictions and was assessed as being at moderate risk of reconviction.  He expressed regret for his actions and the impact that they had had on his family.  He has three young children with his ex-partner.  The breakdown of that relationship around two years ago and the cessation of contact with his children caused him to sink into depression and triggered a descent into cocaine use.  He has significant personal debt.  The threats against him were no mitigation, the Court having been referred to the case of Lusk

Previous Convictions:

One conviction comprising three offences, none of which were relevant for sentencing purposes.

Conclusions:

Rimmer guidelines indicate a starting point range of 9-11 years' imprisonment for trafficking quantities between 50-100 grams of Class A drugs in powder form.  Campbell laid down sentencing guidelines for cases concerning the trafficking of Class B drugs, indicating a starting point range of 2-6 years' imprisonment for quantities between 1-10 kilos.  As this importation involved commercial quantities of both Class A and Class B drugs the Crown invited the Court to apply an appropriate uplift as set out in Valler.  Having regard to these guideline cases, the Crown submitted that the importation of 87.16 grams of cocaine alone should attract a starting point of 10 years, and thereafter invited the Court to add an uplift of 1 year to take into account the cannabis offences, giving a total starting point of 11 years on Count 1. The Crown submitted that a starting point of 2 ½ years was appropriate for Counts 2 and 3

Count 1:	7 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  7 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	6½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  6½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains three charges, one of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of cocaine, and two of cannabis resin. 

2.        These drugs you brought into the island, arriving by car in January this year.  The car was stopped by a Customs Officer.  You gave an explanation as to why you were here which the Customs Officer then challenged in the sense of asking you for further information.  He explained the relevant restrictions and allowances to you and the prohibition on the importation of drugs, and the search of the vehicle took place.  The drugs were found in the spare wheel of the vehicle which was subjected to an x-ray procedure and those drugs in quantity and value were these: 87.16 grams of cocaine which is a Class A drug, having a street value of £7,000 to £8,700; cannabis resin, 1949 grams so nearly 2 kilos with a street value of £29,000 to £39,000 and herbal cannabis, again 2 kilos having a street value of £37,000 to £46,500.  So the total street value of the drugs was between £73,000 and £94,000. 

3.        You pleaded guilty immediately when charged in the Magistrate's Court.  You have given us a letter setting out your remorse, and there are a number of references which have been provided especially by your family and your parents are here to support you today. 

4.        The Court's policy on drug sentencing is settled in a number of Court of Appeal cases.  We are to look at the case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 and with cocaine of this quantity, cocaine being a Class A drug, the band where we have to start is between 9 and 11 years' imprisonment.  In relation to the cannabis which we aggregate, that would take one within the Campbell guidelines (Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136) and the band within which we start as a starting point would be 2 years to 6 years' imprisonment.

5.        It is said by the Crown that what we need to do is to look at the case as a whole and to apply a Valler uplift (Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383) to whatever starting point we take for the cocaine offence because if we were not to do that then the consequence would be that this amount of cannabis, which the Crown considers to be significant, would have been introduced into this island without penalty.

6.        On the cocaine charge we take into account that the quantity involved justifies a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment and we think also that the sophistication of the importation is such that that is the right starting point to take.  You may think that you had no way of knowing what drugs were in that spare wheel.  If you did think that, we want to say to you that you took the risk.  There could have been anything, any amount of drugs in that spare wheel, you would not have known; but you knew there were drugs in there and you took the risk as to whether they were Class A or Class B drugs and how much was in there.

7.        We also think that this is a case where we ought to apply a Valler uplift.  We think that because the quantity of drugs here is nearly 4 kgs, in total it is 3.7 kgs, and furthermore the street values are somewhere between £66,000 and £85,000 and it seems to us that that is a significant quantity of drugs, and for those reasons we are going to take a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment.

8.        We have gone on to consider the mitigation.  The primary mitigation is your guilty plea, your good character up to now, and we disregard completely the traffic offences, so we treat you as being completely of good character, and the remorse which you have expressed.  But we also have taken into account the other mitigation, mental health difficulties, your references, your good work record and the cooperative interviews you had after the first two.  Those last interviews came perhaps later in the day than they could have come because you could have made an immediate admission to the Customs Officers when you arrived. 

9.        The drugs sentencing policy of the Court is there because these drugs, and particularly cocaine, are an evil which we try to keep out of this island.  We recognise that the drug sentences which are imposed are at a level which are higher than they would be imposed in the United Kingdom where you come from, but it is because we try and keep drugs out of here.  In the circumstances of this serious offence we have approached the sentencing in accordance with the Court of Appeal guidelines which I have explained.

10.      Having regard to all that mitigation, you are sentenced as follows: on Count 1 to a sentence of 6½ years' imprisonment.  On Count 2 and Count 3 to a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent in each case with the sentence on Count 1.  I add that in relation to Count 1 the Jurats were divided, and one Jurat was in favour of a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment, however, by majority 6½ years on Count 1 is the figure and your total sentence is therefore 6½ years imprisonment. 

11.      We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. 

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136. 

Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383. 

Whelan, Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey 3rd edition