Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC195

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

12^th October 2009

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Tibbo, Clapham, King, Le Cornu and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Rafal Stasiak

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 17^th July, 2009, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

2 counts 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 (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Stasiak and his colleague Arkadiusz Baginski arrived in Jersey on a ferry from St Malo, driving a car that had been hired in Poland.  They stated that they were in the Island looking for work, and they only had a single ticket.  However, it transpired that the hire car was due to be returned in Poland the following day, and they were also uninsured to drive it in the Island.  They were searched and nothing was found, but the car was impounded while they arranged for insurance cover. 

In the meantime the car was searched and a package was found concealed in the fuel tank.  This contained a total of 199 grams of heroin with a wholesale value of £28,500 and a street value of £200,000 (Count 1), together with 5,300 amphetamine tablets, weighing 1.1 kilos, with wholesale value of £7,800 and a street value of £52,000 (Count 2). 

The two men were arrested.  During the interview Stasiak gave no comment regarding his travel arrangements and the drugs.  Baginski said that they had come to the Island to look for work, and that he was unaware of the drugs hidden in the car.  Both men were charged with the importation of drugs. 

After charge, Stasiak wrote a cautioned statement taking full responsibility for the importation of both quantities of drugs, and exonerated Baginski.  There was no forensic evidence linking either man to the drugs, and the case against Baginski was withdrawn by the Crown.  Stasiak later confirmed that he was not a drug user, and had agreed to act as a courier, purely for financial gain. 

At sentencing, the Crown invited the Court to adopt a starting point of 11 years on Count 1 in relation to the heroin alone, with an additional one year uplift for the amphetamines (in accordance with Valler) making a total of 12 years.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, no previous convictions, youth, remorse, low risk of re-offending.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 12 years.  6 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 6 years.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  6 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

The Court also made an order recommending deportation.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant agreed to act as a courier for the importation of 199 grams of heroin with a street value of £200,000 and 5,300 amphetamine tablets with a street value of £52,000.  The defendant himself is not a drug user but this of course is no mitigation and he admits that he did this as a means of making money.  He has pleaded guilty and he has no previous convictions and is aged 22, but was 21 at the time of the importation.  He therefore has the benefit of youth. 

2.        Rimmer & Others [2001] JLR 383 suggests a starting point of between 10 and 13 years for offences of between 100 and 259 grams of heroin.  The Crown submits that this leads to a starting point of 11 years for the heroin importation which, applying the principles laid down in Valler-v-AG [2003] JLR 383, should be increased to a starting point of 12 years to take into the account the amphetamine tablet importation.  In relation to the amphetamine importation the Crown seeks a starting point of 6 years applying the guidelines laid down in Campbell & Others-v-AG [1995] JLR 136. 

3.        The defence do not demur from the correctness of the starting points put forward by the Crown.  With mitigation the Crown therefore seeks a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment on count 1 and 3 years' imprisonment on count 2 concurrent.

4.        We have considered, as Mr Bell has invited us to do, the Social Enquiry Report and we have considered your references and the submissions that Mr Bell has made.  However, we agree with the conclusions of the Crown having considered all of the mitigation and in particular the defendant's youth.  We wish to confirm the clear policy of the Court that those involved in the importation of drugs will receive condine punishment.  We, as a Court, see all too often the misery inflicted upon those who use and become addicted to these drugs and to their families.

5.        On count 1 you are sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment, on count 2; 3 years' imprisonment concurrent, which makes a total of 6 years' imprisonment.

6.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

7.        Turning to the issue of deportation we have applied the tests laid down in R-v-Nazari [1980] 2 Cr. App. R. (s) 84 and Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 and conclude that the defendant's continued presence here is to the Islands' detriment on account of the seriousness of these offences and as the defendant has no connection with the Island and no family here, deportation will not cause hardship either to him or to innocent persons or to his family.  Furthermore, he does not oppose deportation.  We therefore recommend that his deportation is ordered upon completion of his sentence. 

Authorities

Rimmer & Others-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

Valler-v-AG [2003] JLR 383.

Campbell & Others-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

R-v-Nazari [1908] 2 Cr. App. R. (s) 84.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.

AG-v-Rice [1999] JLR N16a.