[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/198 - AG v Griffin and Corbell [1998] UR 198 (5 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/198.html Cite as: [1998] UR 198

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

5 October 1998

Before F C Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats

Myles, Gruchy, Herbert, Rumfitt, Potter, Quérée, Le Brocq,

Tibbo and Le Breton.

AG

-v-

Graeme David Griffin,

Douglas Hamilton Corbett

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 28 August, 1998, following guilty pleas, entered on 31 July 1998, to the following counts:

GRAEME DAVID GRIFFIN

2 counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:

Count 1: cannabis resin

Count 4: cannabis resin

2 counts of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

1 count of taking of postal packet by a postal officer, contrary to Article 33 of the Post Office (Jersey) Law, 1969, as amended (count 5).

Count 1: On 13 December 1997, in the Island of Jersey, Griffin was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug specified in Part II of the second schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, namely cannabis resin.

Count 2: On 16 December 1997, at 4 du Parcq Court, Bagatelle Road, St. Saviour, Griffin acted in contravention of the terms of Article 6(i) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, in that he had in his possession a controlled drug specified in Part I of the second schedule to the said law, namely cocaine hydrochloride. and 16 December, 1997, at 4 du Parcq Court, Bagatelle Road, St. Saviour, Griffin had in his possession a controlled drug specified in Part II of the second schedule to the said law, namely cannabis resin.

Count 4: While employed in the Postal Service as a deliveries officer Griffin abused his position of authority insofar as between 12 December 1997, and 15 December 1997, he was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug specified in Part II of the second schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, namely cannabis resin.

Count 5: While employed in the Postal Service as a deliveries officer on 16 December 1997, Griffin took a postal packet in the course of transmission by post addressed to 45 Le Grand Pré, St. Clement, contrary to Article 33 of the Post Office (Jersey) Law, 1969, as amended.

Griffin’s guilty plea; his previous good character; the fact that he co-operated fully with the police investigation throughout; during the search of his premises he was helpful and compliant and co-operated with the controlled hand-over of the substitute parcel to the second defendant; his domestic situation; his mother was murdered in 1990 and his father died approximately four years ago following a heart attack. his wife was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in May, 1994; and he has shown remorse for his actions.

The Court was of the opinion that Griffins two minor previous offences were irrelevant for these proceedings.

Confiscation Order in the sum of £23,684. Viscount, per saisie judiciaire, to realise assets in his hands to satisfy such Order by (1) cash in bank; (2) then, proceeds of sale of motor vehicle; (3) then, if necessary, proceeds of insurance policies. Pension is to be released.

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Count 1: 2 years 8 months imprisonment

Count 2: 4 months imprisonment

Count 3: 1 week imprisonment

Count 4: 2 years 8 months imprisonment

Count 5: 5½ years imprisonment

All sentences concurrent. Total: 5½ years imprisonment.

Confiscation Order granted. The Court were of the opinion that Griffin’s case was more serious than that of his co-defendant primarily because Griffin had grossly abused his position as a deliveries officer while in the employment of the Postal Service. Griffin took the parcel out of the system which was the underlying reason for the creation of the law. The Court was particularly concerned that the activities, in particular count 5, would lead to public disquiet.

DOUGLAS HAMILTON CORBETT

2 counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:

1 count of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

1 count of supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

Count 6: On 13 December 1997, in the Island of Jersey, Corbett was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition of the importation of a controlled drug specified in Part II of the second schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, namely cannabis resin.

Count 7: Between 1 December 1997 and 16 December 1997, at 18 Raleigh Avenue, St. Helier, Corbett had in his possession a controlled drug specified in Part II of the second schedule to the said law, namely cannabis resin.

Count 8: Between 15 October 1997 and 12 December 1997, in the Island of Jersey, Corbett was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug specified in Part II of the second schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, namely cannabis resin.

Count 9: Between 15 October 1997 and 12 December 1997, in the vicinity of the Merton Hotel, Belvedere Hill, St. Saviour, Corbett supplied two unknown male persons with a controlled drug specified in Part II of the second schedule to the said law, namely cannabis resin.

Corbett pleaded guilty; he co-operated with police for counts 8 and 9; he was not a prime mover, merely a central go between; he had no significant record and no prior imprisonment or record of involvement with drugs; he had shown remorse for his action and was determined to get his life back in order; and he had already spent 13 months in custody.

The Court made the observation that Corbett knew of his contacts but refused to disclose them. The Court took four years as a starting point and this was reduced by one year as a result of the mitigating factors referred to above.

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Griffin is a 39 year old postman who has been employed at the Post Office for over 20 years. That, in our view, makes this crime more serious than it might otherwise have been. In our view, he has grossly abused his position of trust, particularly because for two years he has been employed in the parcels department of the Jersey Post Office as a deliveries officer and his activities, as they have come to light today, can only lead to public disquiet.

When the Customs sniffer dog discovered 4.964 kilograms of cannabis resin in a packet at Postal Headquarters with a value of £28,025, it became very clear to everyone involved that this was not a spontaneous crime. As later events and discoveries revealed it was a carefully orchestrated scheme which was no doubt well rehearsed and we say that in the light of the fact that we have today made a Confiscation Order for £23,684 against Griffin. That, of course, does not affect the judgment that we are about to deliver.

The observations carried out on Griffin initially were of course conclusive of his guilt. The packet was delivered to Postal Headquarters from a false address in England with a genuine address in Jersey. It was not of course ever delivered to the Jersey address and was never intended to be delivered to the Jersey address because Griffin took it home where Corbett collected it and would no doubt - had he not been apprehended - have passed it on to the person who was expecting it.

Corbett, in his way, is also guilty of the offences with which he has been charged, in an extremely serious way because he knew his contacts but in this deadly trade he refuses to name them.

Let us look for a moment at Article 33 of the Post Office (Jersey) Law, 1969. That says:

In our view, that is exactly what Griffin did; he took a packet out of the system; he took home with him a packet addressed to someone else and that is the very thing that the Article of the Law intends to prevent. This Court, although it regards the drug offences with great seriousness, also regards interference with postal packets by postal officers with the utmost seriousness.

In regard to the drug offences, however, we refer again to the Court of Appeal judgment in Campbell, Molloy & Mackenzie -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA and it seems necessary to us to repeat it. What the Court of Appeal said in its judgment was this:

We are looking at a starting point of four years imprisonment for the drug offences. Griffin clearly must have something taken off for his plea of guilty, although, as we have said, he was virtually caught red-handed. However, there is other mitigation of which his co-operation is the strongest point; he co-operated with the police; he wrote his own indictment on a previous importation and, because of that co-operation, he may have to spend the whole of his term of imprisonment in segregation. This Court cannot take into account the sad personal family matters that have been brought to our attention by counsel this afternoon. Nor, in our view, can we have regard to his good character in the light of the Attorney Generals statement.

Corbett also played his part in what was a carefully planned and executed scheme. He was caught red-handed; he has not named his contacts, although he has pleaded guilty, therefore we look at his case on the same basis as Griffin and we have taken a year off for his plea of guilty and his limited co-operation. He is a courier and if couriers did not exist there would be no effective trade in drugs in this Island.

Will you both stand up, please. Griffin, on count 1, we are sentencing you to 2 years 8 months imprisonment; on count 2, you are sentenced to 4 months imprisonment; on count 3, you are sentenced to 1 week imprisonment; on count 4, you are sentenced to 2 years 8 months imprisonment; on count 5, you are sentenced to 5½ years imprisonment; all sentences to run concurrently.

Corbett, on count 6, we sentence you to 3 years imprisonment; on count 7, you are sentenced to 1 week imprisonment; on count 8, you are sentenced to 3 years imprisonment; on count 9, you are sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, again, all sentences to run concurrently. We confirm having made an Order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Post Office (Jersey) Law, 1969: Article 33.

Campbell, Molloy & MacKenzie -v- AG (1995)136 CofA.

R -v- Barrick (1985) 7 Cr.App.R.(S) 142.

Delaney (1989) 88 Cr.App.R. 388.