Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC031

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

13^th February 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher John Illidge

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 13th December, 2002, following a guilty plea to the following charges

 

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:cocaine.
1 count of:	Possession with intent to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 2: cocaine.

 

 

Age:     43

 

Details of Offence:

Illidge arrived at Jersey airport on a flight from Birmingham.  After collecting his luggage from the baggage carousel and proceeding through customs he was observed by Police and Customs and Excise Officers entering the disabled public toilets.  A subsequent search of the toilets revealed four condoms located in a bin.  On leaving the toilets Illidge proceeded, by way of a taxi, to Squires Public House where he was arrested.  Following his transportation to Police Headquarters, Illidge was searched and a bag containing 55.49 grams of cocaine was found in his jacket pocket.  Illidge admitted that he had imported the drugs into Jersey by concealing them internally with the use of the four condoms that were found in the public toilets.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Numerous written references as to previous good character.  Illidge experienced a painful separation and divorce from his second wife.  This was Illidge's first conviction fro drug related offences.  Illidge was not a drug dealer and had been forced to import drugs into Jersey in order to pay off drug debts in England.  Guilty plea should be given full credit given that at the time of his arrest the drugs were not concealed internally.

 

Previous Convictions:

Minor miscellaneous driving/motor traffic offences.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	7 years' imprisonment;
Count 2:	No conclusions moved; to be left on file.

 

Starting point: 9 years.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	5 years imprisonment.
Count 2:	To be left on file.

 

9 years' imprisonment was the appropriate starting point.  A full discount of one third should be allowed for the guilty plea.  Careful consideration was given to the Alcohol and Drugs Report and it was noted that the Social Enquiry Report made reference to threats to Illidge's life.  The Court referred to the conclusions in AG -v- Patrick [2002/213].

 

The Attorney General.

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE commissioner:

1.        The two offences with which the Defendant is charged concern the importation of cocaine. The importation count is the only one being dealt with today.  The possession charge is to remain on the file.

2.        Illidge came into the airport on the 21^st October, 2002, and relieved himself of the drugs in the disabled toilet.  All of this was monitored by Customs Officers and he was eventually arrested at Squires Public House at 15.30 the next day.  He admitted the offence but said he had no idea of the type of drugs he was carrying.  He had 55.49 grams of cocaine with a purity of 34%.  The defendant is 43 years of age and this is his first conviction for a drugs offence.  In Campbell & Others -v- A.G. [1995] JLR 135 the Court of Appeal said that much will depend on the amount and value of the drugs involved, the nature and scale of the activity, and of course any other factors showing the degree to which the defendant was concerned in drug trafficking.

3.        The sentencing policy of the courts is clear.  In Rimmer, Lusk & Bade -v- AG  [2001] JLR 373 the Court of Appeal set all starting points by reference to the weight and class of the drugs, adjustment being made within those bands to take account of the rôle and the involvement of the defendant and other less significant factors such as street value.  The lowest band for the amount of drugs involved is 9 to 11 and Mrs Pearmain, of course, has looked very carefully at such mitigating factors as there are.

4.        First, we have a letter from the defendant.  He tells us of his two failed marriages and explains how he fell into a spiralling drug debt.  He tells us that he had no option but to bring the drugs in to Jersey.  On that basis, Mrs Pearmain argues that he is a victim.  We have seen other references.  We have his good character, his minimal record with no drugs offences, and this is, of course, a first such offence.  Indeed, one of the letters is from his accountant when he was in business in Jersey.  The question that one will never be able to answer is: how this man has reached this sad position.

5.        He started taking cocaine in England having cashed in an insurance policy of some £15,000 to pay his debts and eventually to fund his cocaine habit.  Originally - because this is the way of dealers in such matters - he did not have to pay for the drugs. 

6.        A one-third discount is usually given for a plea of guilty and, as Mrs Pearmain has told us, the drugs were not actually found internally upon him despite what was found in the toilet after he had left the airport.  He was not going to do the dealing, as he now admits.  The Crown had regarded that as an aggravating factor.  We particularly looked at the case of AG v Patrick (4^th November 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/213].  That involved a greater amount and the accused in that case had run away before being arrested.  He eventually received 4½ years.  It is clear that this defendant was not going to benefit from the amount of drugs that was brought in.

7.        We have no doubt that the starting point of 9 years is correct but we are prepared to look at a full one-third discount for the guilty plea.  We were also impressed by the Alcohol and Drugs Service Report particularly by the fact that this defendant has avoided drugs, which are readily available whilst he has been in prison.  We have also had regard to the Social Enquiry Report and to the fact that he owed money to a dealer and was threatened with his life as was his family.  It is always difficult to compare case with case but we cannot escape the comparison with the case of Patrick.  We note that Illidge has co-operated with the police, that he has no record, and that he appears to be entirely remorseful for the offence he has committed. 

8.        Despite Mrs Pearmain's persuasive arguments we cannot, however, consider anything other than a prison sentence but we are prepared to reduce the conclusions of the Crown particularly in the light of Patrick.  We are, as I have said, well aware of the dangers of comparing case with case but we are going to reduce this sentence to one of 5 years, and we order forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

Authorities

Cambell & others - v - AG [1995] JLR 136 CofA.

Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001] JLR 373 CofA.

AG -v- Patrick (4^th November, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/213].