Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation, possession and supply - Class A, B. C - failure to disclose a key.

[2024]JRC010

Royal Court

(Samedi)

15 January 2024

The Attorney General

-v-

Callie Le Guillou

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 22 September 2023, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Age:  33.

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

On 9 February 2022, a search warrant was executed at the Defendant's home address.  Within a suitcase in the hallway, officers found £670 in cash, 11.24 gram of cannabis resin (Count 6) and three metal foil wraps which contained 2.81 grams of MDMA and ketamine (Count 5).  On arrest the Defendant said that she did not know what the substances were and that she had never seen them.  An iPhone and digital scales were also seized.  The cannabis resin had a street value of between £275 and £385 and the MDMA and ketamine had a street value of between £300 and £360.

The Defendant's mobile phone was analysed having been accessed by the police following the Defendant's refusal to provide the PIN (Count 9).  It was found to contain messages concerning the supply of at least 54 grams of cannabis (Count 2) and 10 MDMA tablets (Count 4) and purchasing and importing diazepam into the Island (Counts 1 and 3).  Payments which linked to the messages found on her phone were found on the Defendant's bank statements.

On 27 April 2023, a search warrant was executed at the Defendant's home address.  75.38 grams of cannabis resin (Count 7) and 21 tablets containing pregabalin (Count 8) were found.  A mobile phone was found, which the Defendant refused to provide the access code for.  On a table within the living room, a box containing numerous plastic ziplock bags was found.  In the kitchen, two grinders, rolling paper and digital electric scale were found.  A piece of paper with figures and sums listed on it, entitled 'Money' was also found.

Details of Mitigation:

In relation to Counts 1 to 8, the Defendant had the benefit of early guilty pleas, entered at the first opportunity.  The Defendant was granted permission to not enter a plea in relation to Count 9 on first appearance.  After further evidence was provided to defence counsel, the Defendant entered a guilty plea on indictment to Count 9.

Previous Convictions:

16 previous convictions, eight for drug related offending including possession of Class A and Class B drugs and cultivating controlled drugs.

Conclusions:

Total:  5 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

Order for forfeiture and destruction of drugs, drug paraphernalia and the Defendant's mobile phone sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total:  3 years and 4 months' imprisonment. 

Order for forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, drug paraphernalia and the Defendant's mobile phone made.

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Callie Le Guillou, you are 33 years old.  In February of 2022, a search warrant was executed at your home and a search revealed £670 in cash, a quantity of cannabis and wraps containing MDMA, a Class A drug.  Digital scales and an iPhone were also seized.  When you were arrested and cautioned you denied knowing what the substances, which turned out to be controlled drugs, were.  You made no comment when interviewed.  Analysis revealed that the Class A drug was 2.81 grams of MDMA mixed with ketamine and 11.24 grams of cannabis resin.  The value of the cannabis was between £275 and £305 and the MDMA mixed with ketamine was worth between £300 and £360.

2.        In your second interview under caution at the end of March 2022, you said that on the day you had been arrested the previous month you had been given a bag by a friend without knowing its contents but you suspected that it contained drugs.  The Crown reject this - unsurprisingly in view of the subsequent analysis of your mobile telephone.

3.        In this second interview you were asked to provide the PIN so that your mobile telephone could be analysed.  You refused to do so on the footing that your telephone contained personal information, and that is and was not a good reason for refusal.  When in July 2022 you were provided with a Notice putting upon you a legal obligation to require you to provide your telephone details, the codes that you provided to the police were invalid.

4.        In any event, in September 2022 the police managed to obtain access to your mobile telephone and Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent the outcome of the analysis of the contents of that mobile telephone.  Counts 1 and 3 arise from messages you sent and received involving your organisation, purchase and importation of diazepam into the Island for which you paid online and Count 2 arises from evidence of your supplying four individuals in Jersey on a total of eight occasions with at least 54 grams of cannabis and Count 4 relates to the supply of another person (to whom you also supplied with cannabis) with 10 MDMA tablets, in the circumstances that the Crown have outlined this morning.

5.        Analysis of your bank statements shows that online payments were made in respect of the diazepam that you imported and payments were also received from those to whom you had sold controlled drugs - including the cannabis to which we have referred.

6.        In your third interview in January 2023, you made no comment in relation to the evidence found on your mobile telephone when it was presented to you.

7.        In April 2023, a further search warrant was executed at your home address when you were on police bail for the earlier matters.  When officers explained why they were at your home you ran upstairs to your living room.  During the search, evidence was found that you were still involved in controlled drugs.  The drugs seized constituted approximately 75 grams of cannabis resin and 21 tablets containing pregabalin.  A mobile phone was also seized belonging to you and you refused to provide an access code to that device as well.

8.        In interview, you accepted that the cannabis belonged to you and you claimed the pregabalin belonged to a cousin.  You said you were addicted to cannabis and diazepam and took each daily.

9.        You pleaded guilty to Counts 1 to 8 inclusive on the Indictment at the first opportunity and you will receive full credit for those pleas.  You pleaded not guilty to Count 9 on the Indictment, the offence involving your refusal to provide access codes to your mobile telephone, until you appeared in this court on indictment on 22 September 2023, the day upon which you were remanded in custody. 

10.     The main counts on the indictment are Counts 4 and 5, which concern the supply and possession with intent to supply respectively of MDMA, a Class A drug.

11.     The Crown contend for a starting point of at least 7 years on Counts 4 and 5.  As to Count 5, the MDMA was combined with ketamine in an unknown proportion and therefore we do not fix a starting point.  In respect of Count 4, we do fix a starting point of 7 years as required by authority.  The Court as currently constituted directs that the Attorney General lists the next sentencing case in which trafficking, importation, possession with intent to supply or being involved in the supply of less than 10 grams or 10 units of a Class A drug be listed before the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff, and no less than 7, preferably 9 Jurats, for a review of the starting points applicable under the Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136, Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 and associated guideline cases.

12.     We have taken into account your letter to the Court, and the other references written on your behalf.  We have all been impressed by the letter that you wrote to us.  We have taken into account the periods of delay in this case for which the Crown has conceded there was no sufficient reason.  We are satisfied in view of your record and the seriousness of the offences that only a custodial sentence is warranted in relation to the offences at Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the Indictment, but we are able to reduce the Crown's conclusions on Counts 4 and 5.

13.     The offence at Count 9 of refusing to provide the access codes to your phone is serious and previous cases indicate that when such offences are committed the Court will always impose a consecutive custodial sentence and this case will be no different.  There is a strong public policy interest in punishing those who attempt to prevent or frustrate investigators, particularly into this sort of offence, by refusing to provide access to their mobile telephones and the message must go out that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable and will be punished.

14.     We are impressed by the steps you have taken in custody and we have given full regard to the supplementary report from the Probation Officer which speaks of what you have done whilst in custody.  You have become an enhanced prisoner, your behaviour is regarded as excellent, you proved yourself trustworthy, you have received in consequence various privileges and you have carried out various courses which we hope will stand you in good stead when you are released from the custodial sentence that we now impose.

(i)        On Count 1 the sentence is 2 months' imprisonment.

(ii)       On Count 2, 16 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

(iii)      Count 3, 2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

(iv)     Count 4, 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

(v)      Count 5, 2 years imprisonment, concurrent.

(vi)     Count 6, 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

(vii)     Count 7, 2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

(viii)    Count 8 1 month of imprisonment, concurrent.

(ix)      Count 9, 10 months' imprisonment consecutive, making a total of 3 years 4 months' imprisonment.

15.     We wish you well on your release and hope we never see you in the Royal Court again. 

Authorities

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136.

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. 

AG v W [2023] JRC 206. 

AG v Quemard [2022] JRC 269.

AG v Le Jehan [2022] JRC 045.

AG v Bennett [2021] JRC 261.

AG v Thurban et al [2020] JRC 212.

AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 027.

AG v Antunes [2003] JRC 072.

Bonnar and Noon v AG [2001] JLR 626.

McDonough v AG [1994] JCA 193