Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs

[2022]JRC153

Royal Court

(Samedi)

15 July 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

J

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 23^rd November 2020 Customs officers intercepted a package at Jersey Post Headquarters bearing the Defendant's address.  The package was examined and found to contain 102 blue coloured Buddah-shaped tablets which field tested positive to MDMA.  

The following day a search warrant was executed at the Defendant's home address.  Officers located two empty postal packages, a set of small digital scales and 14¾ orange MDMA tablets embossed with a #MeToo logo (Count 6) and a purse containing £297 cash.  The Defendant was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug. 

When interviewed the Defendant stated that her former co-accused had asked her to provide her address to deliver MDMA.  She agreed and passed the packages on to the former co-accused.  The Defendant was not expecting a second package and thought there had been two or three packages in total. 

A drug expert analysed the Defendant's mobile phone and concluded that she had been knowingly concerned in the importation of controlled drugs and involved in the supply of controlled drugs.  The expert valued 116¾ MDMA tablets at £20 - £30 per tablet a total of £2,300 - £3,400 if sold at street level. 

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas.  Youth (Defendant was 17 years old at the time of the offences and would have been sentenced before she was 18 years old but for procedural matters with her former co-accused).  Co-operation with interviewing officers and with the investigation.  Role akin to that of minder.  

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total:   180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' youth detention and a 12 month Probation Order. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Crown's conclusions granted.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Crown Advocate C. L. G. Carvalho.

Advocate H. B. Mistry for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE Commissioner:

1.        The Defendant is to be sentenced for the importation of 102 tablets of MDMA with a street value of between £2,000 and £3,000 and possession of some 14 tablets of MDMA.  The Defendant was 17 when the offences were committed.  She had been requested by another youth to provide an address for the drugs to be sent to before passing them on to that youth and she has done this on two or three occasions. 

2.        The Defendant is of good character, was co-operative with the police, provided the police with her PIN numbers to her phone and a signed bank authority.  An examination of her phone showed nothing relating to drugs use and the investigation did not show that she had benefitted financially in any way, and she pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. 

3.        The guidelines in the case of Bonnar v AG [2001] JLR 626 indicate a starting point of 7 to 9 years' imprisonment for the importation of between 1 and 500 tablets.  The Crown adopt a starting point of 7 years' imprisonment, and we agree that that is the right starting point. 

4.        Because the Defendant was 17 when the offences took place and when she was convicted, the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 ("the Young Offenders Law") apply.  The Defendant's role was akin to that of a minder and the Crown conclude that in this case a non-custodial sentence can be justified, and we agree, and this notwithstanding the strict policy of the Court.  That being the case, the Court is restricted by Article 4(6) of the Young Offenders Law to imposing community service of 180 hours which is the equivalent of a sentence of 12 months' youth detention, and that following the decision of the Superior Number in Y v AG [2021] JRC 143.

5.        There is substantial mitigation clearly for the defendant and we have listened to the plea in mitigation put forward by Advocate Mistry, but we do not accept his proposition that this case can be met simply with a Probation Order.  These are serious offences for which a deterrent sentence is needed, and the Defendant can consider herself very fortunate that because of her youth and the provisions of the Young Offenders Law a sentence of imprisonment is not being imposed upon her.

6.        We are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown.

7.        If you would like to stand up, please:

(i)        Count 1 you are sentenced to 180 hours' community service which is equivalent to 12 months' youth detention and a 12-month Probation Order.

(ii)       Count 2, 180 hours community service which is equivalent to 12 months' youth detention and a 12 month Probation Order, concurrent.

(iii)      Count 6, 70 hours community service, which is equivalent to 2 months' youth detention, concurrent,

8.        A total of 180 hours community service which is equivalent to 12 months' youth detention and a 12 month Probation Order. 

9.        We reiterate the point that was made to you earlier, that of course, if you offend again during this period of the Probation Order and the Community Service Order, you will be brought back to the Court, and you may then well be sentenced to imprisonment.  But we are hopeful and confident that the Courts will never see you again.

10.      Finally, we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized in the case.

Authorities

Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009.

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014.

Bonnar v AG [2001] JLR 626.

Y v AG [2021] JRC 143.

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373.