BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Lines 19-Sep-2019 [2019] JRC 184 (19 September 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2019/2019_184.html Cite as: [2019] JRC 184 |
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - possession - Class A.
Before : |
Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Olsen, Ronge, Dulake, Averty and Grime. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Stuart Brian Lines
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 5th July, 2019, following a 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 and Count 3). |
3 counts of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 5, Count 7 and Count 9). |
Age: 36
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
On 20th December, 2018, custom officers intercepted a postal package containing a TV mount in an Amazon box. Inside the box a further taped package containing 6.82 grams of cocaine (Count 3). A search warrant was executed at the address of the intended recipient.
On arrival officers arrested the defendant. During a search of the defendant's bedroom they seized 0.538 grams of cocaine (Count 5), 3 tablets containing MDMA (Count 7) and several small lumps of cannabis resin weighing a total of 86.17 grams (Count 9).
Following an examination of the defendant's mobile phone, officers were able to link the defendant to an earlier postal importation that Customs Officers had intercepted in October 2017. A package containing 12.37 grams of MDMA powder had been seized, addressed to the defendant's then home address (Count 1). Whilst in 2017 officers had been unable to find any connection between the defendant and the MDMA, the analysis of the defendant's phone in 2018 confirmed that the defendant had provided the address to an associate in the UK for the purposes of the delivery of drugs to the Island in 2017.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas.
Previous Convictions:
No previous conviction although received a warning for possession of class A drugs.
Conclusions:
Count 1: |
Starting point 8 years' imprisonment. 4 years and six months' imprisonment. |
Count 3: |
Starting point 7 years' 6 months' imprisonment. 3 years' and six months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 5: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 7: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 9: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 4 years' and six months' imprisonment.
Confiscation order in the sum of £1 sought.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Count 1: |
Starting point 8 years' imprisonment. 4 years' 6 months' imprisonment. |
Count 3: |
Starting point 8 years' imprisonment. 4 years' 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 5: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 7: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 9: |
9 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 4 years' 6 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.
C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. N. Heywood for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. The defendant is here to be sentenced on guilty pleas to an Indictment containing in this respect 5 counts, two of importation and three of possession. The importation is 12.37 grams of MDMA and 6.82 grams of cocaine.
2. These offences were both personal importations and they took place about a year apart. As a result of the second of the importations the defendants premises was searched and he was found to be in possession of 0.5 grams of cocaine, 0.86 grams of cannabis and 0 4 grams of MDMA.
3. The defendant has no previous convictions. He says he has been a small recreational user of drugs and that is consistent with a caution by the Cambridgeshire Constabulary in 2015 for possession of cocaine. We have proceeded on the basis therefore that he is of good character because he has no previous convictions.
4. Unlike the last case we were dealing with this morning this one is clearly not solely for personal use. The importation was not solely for personal use because it was intended that some of the imported drugs would be available for onward sale.
5. There has been a guilty plea to these counts I have mentioned. There were other charges on the Indictment where not guilty pleas were entered, accepted by the Crown and of course we have paid no attention to those.
6. We are required to have regard to, first of all, the question to whether this merits a custodial sentence. The court is quite satisfied on the authorities, particularly Rimmer and Others v AG [2001] JLR 373 that it is appropriate to impose a custodial sentence. We do not consider that a Community Service Order is appropriate. That would be to go in the teeth of the existing and established policy with this court.
7. We have looked to see what the starting point should be, bearing in mind, as I say, that the two importations took place over a year apart or a year apart or thereabouts and were two very separate offences. The defendant was interviewed as a result of the first importation but the Authorities were unable to establish a sufficient link between him and the importation on that occasion. He denied any knowledge of the importation then and therefore the Crown did not prosecute him at that stage and it was only in the course of the subsequent investigation that it was found that he had in fact been orchestrating the first of the importations as well.
8. We were not referred to it by the Crown but we mention the case of AG v MacKenzie and Richards [2011] JRC 173A where there is quite an exhaustive analysis of the correct approach to be taken when sentencing on a charge of being in possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply when the nature of that supply was what has been described as a social supply and many of those considerations will apply equally to any question of social supply attached to an importation. MacKenzie and Richards also tackles the correct approach to be taken on what has been described as the Valler uplift. Paragraphs 43-50 and paragraph 53 are of particular relevance:-
9. It remains the case, if we do not apply a Valler uplift in this case, that the sentence on the second importation offence, whichever one we think is the least serious, would in effect not increase the sentence overall which the defendant will have imposed upon him. So, what we have done is to look at the overall involvement in drug trafficking. It is what Rimmer charges us to do, having regard to both Count 1 and Count 3 and in the knowledge that given one is dealing with MDMA and cocaine and there are slightly different quantities so that it is not necessarily straight forward to identify which is the more serious of the two offences.
10. When we look at the matter in the round it is clear that nearly 20 grams of Class A drugs have been imported, just under 20 grams in fact. Had it been 20 grams on one count then applying Rimmer we would have been in the 8 - 10 years band for a starting point. At 12.37 grams of MDMA one is in the 7 - 9 years starting point and at 6.82 grams of cocaine similarly we are in that band, and so there seems in our judgment to be an absolutely appropriate approach which the Crown has taken to look at 8 years as the appropriate starting point and we have done that. One gets there either by looking at the overall quantity of the drugs or by doing it independently in relation to the two counts and having regard to the important factor which is the overall involvement in drug trafficking where it is clear in particular that these two importations took place many months apart.
11. We take a starting point of 8 years. We have had regard to the guilty plea, to the good character of the defendant. We have noted that he has expressed some remorse although in the context of an assessment of his cooperation we have also noted that he was asked to give financial disclosure and he refused so the extent of that cooperation and perhaps also the extent of the remorse is more limited than he would otherwise have wanted us to accept.
12. He has given us a good reference and generally we have taken into account the Social Enquiry Report and everything which his counsel has said. Having regard to all that mitigation our conclusions on sentence are that the Crown has the overall figure correct although we are going to adjust slightly the sentences on each offence
Count 1: 4 years' 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 3: 4 years' 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5: 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7: 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9: having regard to the quantity of cannabis to 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Total: 4 years' 6 months' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.