Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC034

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

24^th March, 2005.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Patrick Joseph Jones

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 28th January, 2005, 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) 1999. Count 1:  Diamorphine.

 

Age:     47.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

The defendant imported a total of 82.75g of heroin (with a purity of an average of 28% by weight of diamorphine), was which was contained in 3 condom wrapped packages that he concealed internally.  The defendant was stopped and questioned by customs officers on arriving in Jersey on a flight from London Gatwick.  He initially stated that he had nothing to declare but, when customs officers noticed cream around his backside, he admitted that he had concealed the packages of heroin internally.  The heroin had a street value of between £25,550 and £38,272 and a wholesale value of between £12,757 and £17,010.  The defendant gave a "no comment" police interview.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea (entered at committal stage), good work record, difficult background and genuine remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

The defendant had a number of previous convictions.  In particular, he had convictions for six previous drugs related offences, including importation of cannabis, possession of cannabis and possession of amphetamine sulphate and ecstasy.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

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

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court accepted that the defendant had merely acted as the courier of the drugs in return for the payment of a £1,000 reward.  Further, that the defendant had agreed to carry out the drugs run in order to ease his financial difficulties.  The court agreed with the submission of defence counsel that, when taking into account the limited involvement of the defendant in the trafficking of the drugs, the appropriate starting point in this case was that of 9 years' imprisonment (and not that of 10 years' imprisonment identified by the Crown.  The Court determined that the deduction of 3 years made by the Crown in respect of available mitigation was correct.  The Court imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment and ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 

 

M. St. J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D Hopwood for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant imported 82 grams of heroin with a street value of between £25,000 and £38,000 into Jersey concealed internally.  He acted as a courier in return for a fee of £1,000, but fortunately he was detected at the airport. 

2.        We must first consider the starting point.  This falls within the 9 to 11 year bracket, for 50 -100 grams as laid down in Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001JLR173].  The Crown has suggested 10 years which is the mid-point.  That would be correct purely on terms of quantity, but we must also take into account the nature of the defendant's rôle.  We accept Mr Hopwood's submission that that takes it down and we set a starting point of 9 years.

3.        In mitigation there is the guilty plea, but it was, of course, a case where drugs were concealed internally and therefore a full discount is not available.  We accept that this was a drug run done for financial reasons.  The defendant had suffered a chapter of misfortunes as we have heard, and was out of work when he returned from Australia and he, therefore, succumbed to the temptation of an easy £1,000. 

4.        He has previous convictions, including several for possession of drugs, but we take into account that there are none for dealing with commercial amounts of drugs.  He has a good work record, and in particular he has overcome a very difficult background that we have read about; and we have also read carefully the letter which shows that he is devastated by what he has done.

5.        As we say, we think the starting point should be dropped by one year, but we think that overall the mitigation allowed of three years is correct.  The sentence of the Court will, therefore, be 6 years' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001JLR173].

Campbell & Ors. -v- A.G. [1995JLR136].

Valler -v- A.G. [2002JLR383].