1999/198 - AG v Bray [1999] UR 198 (8 November 1999)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 1 October 1999, following a guilty plea to:

1 count of:being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of 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 with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978.

On 18 June 1999 the Defendant arrived in Jersey off the ferry from Weymouth. He was stopped and searched by Customs and eventually it was discovered that he carried a plastic bag inside his jeans which was found to contain 2,952 Ecstasy tablets. He also had £215 in mixed English bank notes and some loose change. X-ray examination proved negative. A search warrant of his home in Leeds was negative. On interview, the Defendant repeatedly said that he believed the tablets were Viagra to be sold on the black market in Jersey. He thought they were worth about £3,500 and he was to be paid £300 by his supplier upon his return to Leeds. He was to go to the Grand Hotel and wait for a person who had his description and would meet him and collect the plastic bag. A financial investigation concluded that there was no evidence to demonstrate he benefited from drug trafficking. The Defendant was co-operative and on the morning of sentencing confirmed that he was willing to name his supplier in Court. The Ecstasy tablets had a street value of between £44,280 and £59,040.

Named his supplier. Said he genuinely thought they were Viagra with a black market value and expressed remorse. Defence counsel asked Court to give further discount for his erroneous belief as to the nature of the drugs. Previous precedents related to defendants who were found carrying Class A drugs but thought they were carrying some other class of drugs such as Class B or C. This Defendant believed he was merely carrying prescription only drugs, and not illegal drugs.

Non-drug related. All in Leeds Magistrate’s Court - 1978 motoring offences; 1983 theft; 1997 drink driving; 1998 driving while disqualified and no insurance.

Starting point: 9 years; 3-year discount for guilty plea; 2-year discount for naming supplier. No confiscation order; drugs to be forfeited and destroyed.

Sentence & Observations of Court: Conclusions granted. Court declined to give further discount for erroneous belief.

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: On the morning of 18 June, when Bray was questioned, he lied to the police; he was nervous and that led to the discovery of 2,952 Ecstasy tablets clearly marked in a plastic bag concealed under his jeans. They had a street value in Jersey of between £44,280 and £59,040. He has pleaded guilty to the charge and he has now served the equivalent of some 6½ months.

In Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA the Court made it very clear that no mitigation was available to a courier having an erroneous belief that he was transporting a Class B drug. In this case, Bray says that he thought he was carrying Viagra tablets. That may be an implausible alibi in any event as each tablet displayed a ‘Mitsubishi’ logo on one side and a scoremark on the other; but Bray says that he has no knowledge of Viagra tablets or of Ecstasy tablets.

He was to go to the Grand Hotel bar and wait there. He had money in his possession and an unknown person would call, collect the plastic bag and he would be paid £300 on his return to Leeds. If that is true then he will have to pay a heavy price for a very small potential reward.

Bray has no previous drug related offences and in the context of the present offence his previous offences are relatively minor. Tests on his blood and urine were negative for drugs and a search later carried out at his home revealed nothing related to drug use.

We have read a number of references, one from his employer and one from his former girlfriend.

Mrs. Sharpe took a starting point of nine years and took a third off for the guilty plea and because he has named his supplier a further two years to make a total of 4 years. Miss Fogarty, whilst not disagreeing with that approach, put to us the question of erroneous belief because she felt that that should allow for a greater deduction and has argued that point out in full.

We have considered that matter in some detail, particularly with regard to the cases which she has carefully collated for us, but we remain unconvinced that erroneous belief can assist in this particular case. Bray is a mature man who has not lived in a cosseted world. He has, after all, been living for most of his life in the city of Leeds. We will, however, say this: anyone who names his supplier - where this is confirmed to us - will receive a substantial discount. We feel that in this case two years is sufficient.

Bray, will you stand up, please. On count 1 you are sentenced to 4 years imprisonment; on count 2 you are sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 4 years imprisonment. The time that you have already spent in custody will be deducted from your sentence and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/198 - AG v Bray [1999] UR 198 (8 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/198.html Cite as: [1999] UR 198

Jersey Unreported Judgments