Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC142

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th August 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Curtis Warren

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 23^rd May, 2003, following a guilty plea to:

 

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:diamorphine.

 

Age:     36.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Warren was stopped at Jersey Airport by Customs Officers.  He was questioned and searched.  Prior to his bag being searched he admitted that he was carrying drugs with some hidden in his bag and some carried internally.  A total of 149.98 grams of heroin was recovered from him, with an average purity of 12% by weight of diamorphine.  The local street value for this seizure was between £44,944 and £67,490.  At interview, whilst Warren admitted his involvement in the importation, he declined to answer any questions as to who had organised the importation or what his intentions were upon his arrival in Jersey.

The Crown took as its starting point a sentence of 11 years' imprisonment.  The importation would have produced between 1,788 and 2,682 individual doses of heroin on the streets of Jersey.  It was considered to be a poorly organised importation featuring an ill-prepared courier.  Warren's motivation was financial gain.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown gave credit for the guilty plea which was considered to be inevitable.  He was entitled to credit for his initial co-operation and had made admissions prior to the discovery of the drugs.  He did not have the benefit of youth nor good character.  He had previous drug convictions.  A Psychiatric Report was prepared which indicated that Warren had a 3 to 4 year history of probable paranoid schizophrenic illness which had been controlled by medication for at least the past two years.  The psychiatrist's opinion was that this illness made him more vulnerable to exploitation by others.  There was, however, no direct link between the illness and the commission of the offence.

The Defence contended that, given his level of involvement, a starting point of 11 years was too high and suggested a 10 year starting point.  In mitigation the Defence relied upon his guilty plea, his level of co-operation, remorse and his general background, and in particular his vulnerability.  A letter from Warren (not seen by the Crown) was handed up in support of his remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous offending for dishonesty and other offences for violence.  He also had a previous offence of possession with intent to supply and possession of cannabis, albeit the intent to supply charge appeared to be at the lower end of the scale, given the lenient sentence imposed.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

7 ½ years' imprisonment. (11 year starting point.)

Confiscation order: £160.87

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

7 years' imprisonment. (10 year starting point.)

Confiscation order: £160.87

The case involved an all too familiar patter. Following a search by vigilant Customs Officers, 149.98 grams of heroin was discovered.  The Court had regard to all of the available mitigating factors, being the guilty plea, albeit that it was inevitable, and his co-operation, but he did not name his supplier or any other information relating to the importation.  He was 36 with a criminal record and the Court noted the previous offence of supply.  The Court read the letter and noted that he had expressed remorse and the information concerning his background made sad reading.  The Court quoted from the Campbell judgment in relation to the level of involvement of the individual courier.  Warren was a mule who was involved in an unsophisticated importation.  The Court concluded that a 10 year term of imprisonment was a better starting point in the circumstances.  The Court referred to the fact that 3 young people had died recently because of the activities of people like Warren.  Having regard to the mitigation, the Court imposed the above sentence.

 

 

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Grace for the Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE commissioner:

1.        This case follows an all too familiar pattern.  We do not need to repeat the facts.  They have been set out to us very clearly by Crown Advocate Gollop.  Warren originally said that he was coming to Jersey to look for work; he was unemployed at the time.  A search by vigilant Customs Officers revealed concealed packages containing heroin, some internally, some in his luggage.  In all he had 149.98 grams of heroin with an average purity of 12% by weight diamorphine.  The heroin seized had a street value of between £44,944 and £67,490. 

2.        We have had careful regard to Campbell and ors -v- AG [1995] JLR 136 and Rimmer and ors -v- AG [2001] JLR 373.  This case, as Advocate Gollop has explained to us, clearly falls within the 100-250 gram bracket, which would give a starting point of between 10 and 13 years.

3.        We have, of course, considered all the mitigating factors: the plea of guilty, although it is difficult to see how he could have pleaded not guilty; his co-operation, short of course of naming his supplier or the intended recipient.  He is 36; and his previous record  includes a previous supply charge, but that was as long ago as 1991.  He has shown remorse.  We have read his letter most carefully and we have, of course, studied the background reports which make for sad reading.  But we have to remember that the amount of heroin would have made between 1,788 and 2,682 individual doses.  As was said by the Court of Appeal in Campbell:

"much will depend upon 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."

We appreciate that Warren is a mule and not a sophisticated operator.

4.        The Crown set the starting point at eleven years but we feel, after much reflection, that ten years' is a better starting point.  We have taken account of the available mitigation: we have no doubt that you were targeted because of your vulnerability, but you know how crime affects other people and you may not know that at least three young people died in Jersey over the Christmas period because of the activities of people like you. You are sentenced, therefore, to seven years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.  

Authorities

Campbell and ors -v- AG [1995] JLR 136.

Rimmer and ors -v- AG [2001] JLR 373.