Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession with intent to supply - possession - Class B.

[2013]JRC229

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 November 2013

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Nicolle.

The Attorney General

-v-

Alan Martin

Sentencing by the inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 2 and 4).

Age:  37.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant's flat was raided by Customs officers, who discovered 477 grams of amphetamine sulphate hidden in a tumble drier (Count 1).  They also found personal use amounts of amphetamine sulphate and cannabis resin elsewhere in the flat (Counts 2 and 3).  The 477 grams of amphetamine had a mid-range street-deal purity level of 7%, a street value of £28,560, and a wholesale value of £3,400. 

The defendant said in interview that he was minding the 477 grams of amphetamine for a friend and had been doing so for the past month.  He said his reward was the personal use amphetamine and cannabis resin also found in the flat.  The Crown was not in a position to gainsay this account and the defendant therefore fell to be sentenced as a minder, albeit of a commercial, high-value quantity of drugs. 

Details of Mitigation:

As to the offence itself, the defendant was a minder not a principal offender.  His reward was limited to the personal use drugs in his possession and did not extend to the direct commercial benefit from supplying the amphetamine.

As to the offender, he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, albeit this was tempered by the fact that a guilty plea was inevitable given the amount of amphetamine with which he had been caught red-handed. 

Though he had previous convictions, the last of these had been committed 16 years previously. 

Previous Convictions:

16 previous convictions, including an offence of trafficking a Class A drug, for which a sentence of 3 years' youth custody had been imposed on appeal.  Since that last offence, and the present ones, the defendant had gone 16 years without offending. 

Conclusions:

A review by the Crown of Royal Court cases of trafficking similar commercial quantities of amphetamine sulphate (between 160 grams and 500 grams) indicated that sentences following a guilty plea were liable to fall within a range of 18 months to 3 years, depending on the facts of the individual case, the offender's role, and the available mitigation. 

The defendant was involved in trafficking a commercial, high-value quantity of amphetamine which he must have known was destined for the streets of Jersey.  Whilst he was a minder, not a principal, nonetheless he formed a valuable part of a commercial supply chain.  Given the quantity and value of the drugs, he must have been close to and trusted implicitly by the ultimate trafficker.  

A sentence of 3 years would have been appropriate on conviction following a trial.  Therefore a starting point of 3 years was appropriate following a guilty plea.  A discount of 12 months to reflect the mitigation could fairly be given. 

Starting point 3 years' imprisonment. 

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Minders play an important part in the drug supply chain, allowing the principals to distance themselves from the drugs.  There was no Jersey guideline case on amphetamine sulphate, but the Jersey authorities cited by the Crown had assisted the Court to identify the correct sentencing area.  The English case of R v Wijs, relied on by the defence to suggest a starting point of 2 years, was not helpful.  Jersey courts had made clear on a number of occasions that drug sentencing policy in Jersey did not follow that in England.  In fact the correct starting point was 3½ years, not the 3 years proposed by the Crown. 

Starting point 3½ years' imprisonment. 

Conclusions granted. 

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You were acting as a minder in relation to 477 grams of amphetamine sulphate with a street price of just over £28,000.  In return you received personal amounts of cannabis and of amphetamine sulphate. But as the Court has said before, the position of minder provides an important link in the supply chain.  In particular it enables an organiser to distance himself from the physical possession of the drug and therefore reduce the risk to himself of being caught.  You also have a previous conviction for possession with intent to supply ecstasy back in 1997 when you were sentenced to 3 years' youth custody. 

2.        There is no guideline case concerning possession with intent to supply or supply of amphetamine sulphate.  We have been referred by the Crown Advocate to the cases of AG-v-Jones, McFarland, Pinkowski [2004] JRC 002, AG-v-Nicolle and Nicolle 1997/7, AG-v-Rice 1999/96, AG-v-Rice 2000/9 and AG-v-Chainey 1996/186.  Advocate Dale has referred us to the English case of R-v-Wijs and Others [1999] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 181.  We have to say that we do not find that case helpful.  The fact is that this Court has a different sentencing policy in relation to drug trafficking from the English courts.  It would be very strange if, in relation to amphetamine sulphate alone, we were to ally our sentencing policy with that of England.  We therefore do not consider that Wijs assists us. 

3.        We have reviewed the four Jersey cases to which we were referred, not because they contain any statement of principle but they do assist us in reaching the right area of sentencing.  And we think they show a broad consistency; the only one which perhaps could be said to be out of line is the case of Jones, but as the Crown Advocate rightly points out, that was a case where the offence in relation to amphetamine sulphate was one of the less serious offences and the court was, at the same time, dealing with more serious offences.  As this Court has said before, whilst we endeavour, of course, to pass the right sentence for every charge even where they are concurrent, it is inevitably the case that we focus on the sentence for the most serious offence because the other sentences will not make any difference to the overall outcome.  It is therefore unwise to rely on previous cases where a concurrent sentence has been passed on a less serious charge.  We think therefore that the sentence in the case of Jones cannot bear any particular weight.  Turning to the others though, we think they are of assistance, and they lead us to conclude that the correct starting point in this case is actually one of 3½ years. 

4.        In relation to mitigation, we have taken into account the guilty plea and we agree with Advocate Dale that a full one-third discount should be granted for the reasons that she describes.  We also take into account the fact that, although this defendant has a previous drug trafficking offence, it was back in 1997 when he was 20 and there has therefore been a long period without reoffending.  He has a good work record and we have read the references; we are also glad to hear that the defendant is determined not to become involved in drugs in the future and we hope very much that he keeps to that.  We have read the background report and we have listened carefully to the points which Advocate Dale has made. 

5.        But we conclude that the sentences moved for by the Crown are correct.  On Count 1; 2 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 1 month's imprisonment, on Count 4; 4 months' imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent, so that is 2 years in all. 

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

Authorities

Campbell and Others v AG [1995] JLR 136.

Rimmer and Others v AG 2001/148.

Warren and Others v AG [2010] JCA 084.

AG-v-Jones, McFarland, Pinkowski [2004] JRC 002.

AG-v-Nicolle and Nicolle 1997/7.

AG-v-Rice 1999/96.

AG-v-Rice 2000/9.

AG-v-Chainey 1996/186.

R-v-Wijs and Others [1999] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 181.