Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - drugs - possession - Class A - careless driving - failure to report an accident.

[2018]JRC046

Royal Court

(Samedi)

5 March 2018

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Grime and Christensen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Ibrahim Abdullah Roslan

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

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Careless driving, contrary to Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic Offences (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 2).
1 count of	Failure to stop and immediately inform a police officer of the occurrence of an accident, contrary to Article 52(1) of the Road Traffic Offences (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 3).
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 4).

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 30^th August, 2017, the defendant's home was raided by police.  At the time he was on licence in the UK and had failed to inform his probation officer that he was in Jersey.  During their search, the police recovered 1.57 milligrams of white powder in the wallet of the defendant, which was found in his car that was parked outside.  The powder tested positive for cocaine (Count 1). 

On 12^th October, 2017, the defendant met his work supervisor and some other work colleagues.  He consumed one to two pints of beer and subsequently agreed to drive his supervisor back to her home address. 

The defendant was driving in a dangerous manner and he drove down a small lane - La Rue du Pignon in the Parish of St Clement.  The road conditions were slippery with leaves and debris covering the road.  The supervisor described the defendant as driving too fast and in a reckless manner.  Neither the defendant nor the supervisor were sure of what happened next, but the car ended up on its roof (Count 2).  Despite a passing motorist offering assistance, the defendant left the scene of the accident and did not call the police (Count 3). 

On 28^th October, 2017, the defendant was stopped by Customs and Immigration as he arrived from Liverpool on an EasyJet flight.  A search was conducted and the defendant's holdall and headphones tested positive for cocaine, and he was arrested on suspicion of importation of a controlled drug. 

At approximately 18:04 hours, he was observed by a customs officer to reach towards his crotch area and remove a condom wrapped package.  The package was seized and found to contain a yellow plastic insert from a kinder egg containing two plastic wrappings filled with white powder.  During subsequent forensic analysis, the first plastic wrap was found to contain fine white powder with a total weight of 4.73 grams.  No controlled substances were found in this item.  The second plastic wrap was found to contain cocaine weighing 13.55 grams with a purity value of 70% and a street value of £1120.00 to £9500.00 (Count 4).  The defendant admitted to importing the cocaine for personal use.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; cooperation; drugs imported for personal use; support of partner; good work ethic.

Previous Convictions:

Previously convicted for importation of a controlled drug.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 6 months' imprisonment.  4 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	£1,500 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	Starting point 8 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment and £1,500 fine.

Driving disqualification sought for a period of 18 months' in relation to Counts 2 and 3.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The court found that the defendant's offending after being arrested and cautioned by the police for Count 1 constituted an aggravating factor.  Similarly the defendant had been on licence in the UK at the time of the offending and had failed to attend meetings with his probation officer. 

No separate penalty was handed down for Count 2 as 4 years' imprisonment was representative for the overall criminality of the offending. 

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	No separate penalty.
Count 3:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4 years' imprisonment together with a disqualification from driving for a period of 18 months on Counts 2 and 3 with the requirement to retake a driving test.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

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

Advocate L. V. Marks for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE Commissioner:

1.        The defendant, who is 29, stands to be sentenced to one count of possession of small quantity of cocaine, two driving offences and one count of importing cocaine.  It is the importation of the cocaine that is the most serious offence.  The defendant was stopped by Customs and Immigration after arriving on a flight from Liverpool.  Swabs from inside his holdall and headphones tested positive for cocaine and he was arrested. 

2.        In custody he was observed taking a condom wrapped package from his crotch area.  It contained two packages, one containing no control substances and the other containing cocaine weighing 13.55 grams with a purity of 70% and with a street value of at the lowest £1,120 going potentially up to £9,500 if further adulterated.  

3.        The Crown invite the court to sentence the defendant on the basis that this importation was for personal use and following the approach set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Shahnowaz v AG [2007] JLR 221 have taken the starting point of 8 years applying the guidelines in Rimmer Lusk v AG [2001] JLR 373, the applicable band being between 7 and 9 years for the starring point.  The Crown have then allowed a one third deduction for the guilty plea and a further deduction for the drugs being for the defendant's personal use, arriving at a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment in total. 

4.        The penalty sought by the Crown in relation to the driving offences, which we agree with the Crown were serious, come within the guidelines issued by the Magistrate. 

5.        The defendant has a previous conviction for importing drugs for which he was sentenced for 3½ years' imprisonment.  He was transferred to the United Kingdom to complete his sentence and was released on licence on 31^st December, 2015.  He had not been given permission to travel to Jersey and we are told had failed to attend a number of appointments with his supervising officer. 

6.        These offences were committed, therefore, whilst on licence for the previous offences and the importation took place after he had been cautioned over the cocaine found in his car.  These are aggravating features. 

7.        He is assessed in the Social Enquiry Report at a medium risk of generalised reconviction but he poses as no risk of violence to others. 

8.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty, he has the support of his partner and we have considered the references that have been supplied and indeed his own letter to us.  He does have a good work ethic and employment record. 

9.        Advocate Marks has suggested to us that the appropriate staring point should be 7½ years' imprisonment but we disagree.  Taking into account all of the mitigation put forward by her we agree with the conclusions of the Crown in respect of all the offences for which he is to be sentenced today.  In particular, we agree that having regard to all of the documents before us a total sentence of 4 years is the correct amount to reflect all of the criminality here. 

10.      In order to constrain ourselves to that totality we will therefore impose no penalty for Count 2, that is the careless driving and we will impose a concurrent sentence for Count 3 for failing to report,  but we wish to make it absolutely clear that we regard the driving offences here as very serious.  The passenger was clearly badly frightened by the experience of being driven in that way, with the car turning onto its roof, an accident that could have resulted in serious injury to her and indeed to the defendant.  It is also clear that the defendant's conduct frightened the innocent witness who came upon the scene later and was trying to assist.  

11.      The Court sentences you as follows on Count 1; 1 months' imprisonment; Count 2; no separate penalty; Count 3; 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent; Count 4; 4 year's imprisonment, concurrent, which makes a total sentence of 4 years' imprisonment.  We impose a disqualification for a period of 18 months in relation to Counts 2 and 3. 

12.      We order the destruction of the controlled substances seized in the case. 

Authorities

Shahnowaz v AG [2007] JLR 221

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373.

Attorney General-v-De La Haye and Kearney [1995] JRC 248.

Attorney General-v-Roslan, Whitcombe & Lagadu [2015] JRC030A.