Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/86

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12^th April, 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Royston Andrew Lusk

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 6^th April, 2001, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 1: heroin; Count 3: heroin.
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 2: heroin.
1 count of:	Escaping, without force, from lawful custody contrary to Article 22(A) of the Prison (Jersey) Law, 1957 (Count 4).

 

 

Age:  27          

 

Details of Offence:

Counts 1 to 3 - drugs offences

Prosecution sentenced on the basis of explanation given by Lusk to the Probation Officer that his involvement in the matter was that he had been requested by Liverpool drug dealers to travel to Jersey to test the strength and quality of a consignment of drugs sent to Jersey.  Lusk said that he booked into a room at the Mayfair Hotel for 3 nights and that whilst he was absent from the room, the dealer in Jersey placed 5 bags of heroin, together weighing a total of 136.90 grams (approximately 4.93 imperial ounces).  The drug had a combined street value of between £41,070 and £61,604 (or wholesale value of between £20,450 and £27,380) and was sufficient to make between 821 and1,232 "fifty" bags.  As a result of a police surveillance operation Lusk was arrested at the entrance of the hotel shortly after his arrival in the island.  He was found in possession of three of these packages recovered from his tracksuit trouser pocket.  When police searched his room at the Mayfair Hotel, they discovered a loose ceiling tile behind which were concealed the further two packages.  Lusk initially denied that the heroin found in his tracksuit trousers belonged to him and denied all knowledge of the heroin found in the ceiling area of his hotel room.  Lusk was also found in possession of a number of pieces of paper with names and contact telephone numbers on.  Lusk lied to the police during question and answer interview when he denied that he had made telephone contact with an individual named on one of the lists.  Count 1 related to three bags found on his person and Count 3 related to the two bags found in the ceiling void.  Count 2 (simple possession) related to traces of drugs found on foil wraps on the floor of the hotel room which Lusk claimed were the result of his having tested a sample of the drug in each of the three packets found in his tracksuit trouser pocket. 

Count 4 - Escaping from lawful custody.

As Lusk alighted from the Prison van outside the Magistrate's Court, he turned to his right and used the police van to obstruct a police officer.  He ran through the narrow gap between the front nearside of the vehicle and the Court building and ran away.  He was pursued by three officers and seen to run into York Street, Dumaresq Street and then turn into Pitt Street.  Officers found Lusk lying curled up in a large parish dustbin.  Offered no resistance on his arrest and was escorted back to the Magistrate's Court.         

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea.  Defence Counsel referred to threats Lusk had received (both in relation to himself and members of his family).  No previous convictions for drugs.  Possible residual mitigation for youth.  Defence counsel suggests 9 year starting point with greater allowance for mitigation (based on the decision of the Court earlier that morning in the case of Roy Lawrence Durkin).   

 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

 

Conclusions:

Crown adopts starting point of 10 years' imprisonment on basis that Lusk was to provide a valuable service to drugs dealers in both Liverpool and Jersey and was, in effect, expected to be a minder for a large commercial quantity of drugs for a two or three day period.  Lusk paid for and made his own travel arrangements to the island and had in his possession a list of names, local contact telephone numbers and appeared to have made contact with a local dealer prior to his arrest. 

 

Count 1:	8 years imprisonment
Count 2:	3 months imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	8 years imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	6 months imprisonment.

 

TOTAL:  8 ½ years imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  Threats to himself and family are not mitigating factors

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. J. F. Pirie for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

[First part of Judgment not recorded.]

1.        ...to the Probation Officer but for the avoidance of doubt we are sentencing you on that basis.  Even so it is clear that you were involved in the handling of a substantial quantity of heroin which, if it had reached the streets of Jersey, would have caused untold further damage.  We think that the starting point of 10 years taken by the Crown Advocate is correct.

2.        We accept that you have been threatened but violence and threats are an inescapable part of the dirty business of drug trafficking; it is no mitigation.

3.        We think that the Crown Advocate has given as much weight as it was possible to give to the mitigating circumstances outlined by your counsel and we accordingly sentence you on count 1, to 8 years' imprisonment; on count 2, to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent; on count 3, to 8 years' imprisonment, concurrent; on count 4, to 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 8½ years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

Authorities

Campbell & Ors-v-AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

AG -v- Powell (19^th July, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/139]