Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC151A

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

19^th August 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham, Le Cornu, Liddiard, Kerley, Nicolle and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Glen Fraser Martin

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

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).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant was stopped by Customs Officers at the Airport having arrived on a FlyBe flight from Gatwick.  He was travelling alone and had only a small drawstring bag.  When questioned he said that he was in the Island to have a break from his partner and had his travel details handwritten on a piece of paper.  His bag was searched and was found to contain a minimal amount of clothing and no toiletries or other normally expected items.  The Defendant was strip searched and as he removed his shoe a spherical object rolled from his shoe.  He was arrested and the search continued.  In all ten packages were recovered from his socks and shoes.  The packages contained a total of 163g of heroin with an average purity of 37.2%.

In interview the Defendant initially denied that he knew what he was carrying but eventually admitted he knew that the package contained heroin.  He told the officers that he had been approached by a man named only as "Paul" and asked to take something to Jersey.  On the day of travel he met with "Paul" and was given the already wrapped packages.  He was told to "swallow or plug" them but out of concern for his health chose to put them in his socks and shoes.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, youth - including a low "mental age" and naivety as set out in the forensic psychologist's report.  The Defendant was merely a mule.  Suggests this is an exceptional case given the Defendant's low position in the drug hierarchy and low cognitive ability.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Starting point 11 years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Benefit and Confiscation Order in the nominal sum of £1 sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

Benefit and Confiscation Order in the nominal amount of £1 made. 

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

Advocate C. R. Baglin for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You fall to be sentenced on the charge of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing controlled drugs, namely heroin.  The amount involved was 163 grams with an average purity of 37.2%, having a street value of £163,000 and a wholesale value of between £28,500 and £57,000.  The purchase price of the heroin in England is thought to be between £3,500 and £4,500.  The drugs were concealed in your shoes and socks. 

2.        The Court has approached this with a great deal of care, as you will appreciate from the amount of time we have spent out considering the matter, and we have applied the guidelines which are regularly applied in this Court as a result of the Court of Appeal's decision in Rimmer-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.  The starting point we have taken at 10 years; that is assessed by reference to the fact in particular that you were bringing the drugs in for somebody else, in what is described as being a mule, and taken into account the background reports as to cognitive abilities. 

3.        We have applied, in those circumstances, the case of AG-v-Sweeney [2003] JRC 122 which your counsel suggested to us and arrived at a starting point of 10.  From that point we then make deductions for mitigation and the mitigation we have taken into account is the guilty plea which you have entered, the co-operation, your expressions of remorse, the letter which you have written to the Court, the lack of previous convictions, your previous good character and good record and the fact that you are still a young man with the personal characteristics that you have and in particular with regard to the case of AG-v-Hilario [2008] JRC 195.  We have also taken into account all the other material which is before the Court.  Sentencing is never an arithmetical exercise and the Jurats have considered anxiously what effect this mitigation has on the starting point.  They are divided on the matter; two Jurats were in favour of a lower sentence but the majority consider that 5 years' imprisonment remains the correct sentence to impose for this particular offence. 

4.        Accordingly that is the sentence which this Court imposes upon you.  It reflects the seriousness with which this Court views the importation of Class A drugs into this Island. 

5.        The Court orders the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Sweeney [2003] JRC 122.

AG-v-Hilario [2008] JRC195.