Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Drugs - importation - class A

[2020]JRC037

Royal Court

( Samedi)

26 February 2020

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith O. B. E., Commissioner, and Jurats Thomas, Pitman, Christensen, Austin-Vautier and Hughes

The Attorney General

-v-

Francis Mkatapa

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 31^st January, 2020, 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:  31. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On 3^rd October, 2019, the defendant was stopped and questioned by Customs Officers while passing through the baggage reclaim area at Jersey Airport.  The defendant had travelled alone on an EasyJet flight from Liverpool.  An ION swab scan was taken from the defendant's mobile telephone which gave a positive reaction to cocaine.  The defendant admitted to taking cocaine the previous night and admitted that he was a regular cannabis user.

 

The defendant was stripped searched but nothing was found on his person.  He was then booked into custody at the Elizabeth Quay Terminal and during the booking in procedure, the defendant was observed by Officers to bend over and fiddle with the bottom of his trousers, shoes and socks.

 

The defendant was instructed to change into a paper suit.  Upon removing some of his clothing, the defendant turned his back to the Officers and placed his clothing partly on the floor and partly onto a ledge below the wash-hand basin in the toilet area.  Customs Officers then noticed that the defendant had placed three-oblong shaped packages (which had been concealed internally) on the ledge.  The defendant was then arrested and interviewed.

 

The three packages, weighing 49.94 grams, 42.69 grams, and 41.29 grams (133.92 grams total), were analysed and found to cocaine at 92% purity.  An expert report was compiled and recorded that if the drugs were sold on the local street market, they would have a value between £16,000 and £20,000.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea (however all but inevitable in the circumstances), letter of remorse, importation was relatively unsophisticated, courier only. 

Previous Convictions:

The Defendant has six previous convictions for eleven offences including one conviction for possession with intent to supply cocaine in January 2015

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 11 years' imprisonment.  8 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate G D Emmanuel for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for the importation of 133.92 grams of cocaine into Jersey concealed internally.  The cocaine had purity of 92% by weight and a local market value of between £16,000 and £20,000. 

2.        The guidelines in Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 indicate a starting point of between 10 and 13 years' imprisonment for the trafficking of between 100 to 250 grams of a Class A drugs in powder form.  The defendant falls within the lower end of that band but the prosecution seek a starting point of 11 years taking into account the very high purity of the cocaine and following the approach of the court set out in Rimmer at paragraphs 28 and 29 namely, that if the purity is very high, at about 75% or greater, then it may be appropriate to increase a starting point because firstly a consignment of such purity is much more like to be cut, and if not it will do greater harm of those who consume the drug.  As a result the prosecution, as we have said, seek a starting point of 11 years and Advocate Emmanuel for the defendant agrees that is correct. 

3.        The defendant has a previous conviction for processing cocaine with intent to supply in January 2015 and other non-drug related convictions.  He is assessed at a high risk of reconviction and taking into account his guilty plea the prosecution move for a sentence of 8 years.

4.        In terms of mitigation, the defendant has pleaded guilty, but we agree that in reality he had no option but to do so and therefore that plea is of less value than would otherwise be the case.  But we have read his letter of remorse and taken into account everything he has said in that letter which we accept as being genuine.

5.        Advocate Emmanuel has said in mitigation that the defendant was acting under threat, but we are entirely in the hands of a defendant as to the explanation given for the importation of drugs.  In our view threats or intimidation cannot constitute mitigation.  As the prosecution say, the risk of harm in this case centres on the harm caused by drugs consumed by individuals and indeed people in the wider society.  If not detected these drugs would have entered into the local community and the risk of harm to that community by the very nature of the offence is high as Crown Advocate Hollywood has said.  You only need to look at the recent death of a 19 year old as a result of consumption of Class A drugs in order to see the harm that is done to our community.

6.        The defendant was acting as a courier, but as such he played a vital role and we agree that there is nothing exceptional in his case to warrant the court deviating from its strict sentencing policy and in the circumstances we agree with the conclusion of the prosecution.

7.        You are sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

8.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized in this case and there is no order as to costs.

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. 

AG v Lester and ors. [2011] JRC 029B

AG v Knowles [2014] JRC 007

AG v Ennis [2018] JRC 117