Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/58

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

8^th March, 2001

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats

de Veulle, Le Ruez, Quérée, Bullen,

Le Breton and Allo.

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew John Wood;

Adrian Mark Bevis.

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the two accused  were remanded by the Inferior Number on 4^th August, 2000, and 2^nd February, 2001, following guilty pleas to the following counts:

 

Andrew John Wood

 

1 count of:   resisting police in the execution of their duty (count 1);

 

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

                    count 2: MDMA;

                    count 3: diamorphine.

 

Age:    31.

 

Details of Offence:

 

There was an altercation with a police officer outside a nightclub which turned to a scuffle in which both fell to the ground (count 1).  The accused was caught in the flagrant supplying of an ecstasy tablet to a female acquaintance in a nightclub (count 2).  The accused used a hollow branch in a hedgerow bordering a public road as a 'post box', leaving £34,000 worth of heroin for subsequent collection by an accomplice.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The change of plea to guilty on the major charge suitably in advance of the trial.  There was a strong prosecution case, but the outcome was not certain, and therefore a full one-third mitigation to be applied to the 11 year starting point.  The accused was not head of supply chain but a link lower down in the process of dissemination.  The accused got involved with drugs as a 'misguided favour' and had thought he was handling a Class B drug and was shocked when he discovered it was heroin.  The lesser offences were relatively minor and would have stayed in the Magistrate's Court in other circumstances.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Minor public order offence, but, significantly, one previous episode resulting in convictions for supplying/possessing Class A drugs for which a sentence of 4 years' and 6 months' imprisonment was imposed.

 

Conclusions:

 

count 1: 2 months' imprisonment;

count 2: 4 months' imprisonment;

count 3: 7 years' imprisonment, all consecutive.

TOTAL: 7½ years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

count 1: £100 fine or 1 months' imprisonment in default of payment;

count 2: 4 months' imprisonment;

count 3: 7 years' imprisonment, all concurrent.

TOTAL: 7 years' imprisonment; £100 fine.

 

Adrian Mark Bevis

 

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

                    count 4: diamorphine.

 

Age:    30.

 

Details of Offence:

 

This co-accused had received £34,000 worth of heroin which had been left for him in a hedgerow by his accomplice (Andrew John Wood who was sentenced at the same hearing); Bevis had intended to pass it further down the supply chain.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Bevis was deeply addicted to heroin and had become involved in order to service his addiction.  Bevis was not at the head of the supply chain but a link in the dissemination further down.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

The co-accused has a number of previous convictions, predominantly for dishonesty.  He had no previous drugs convictions (despite self-confessed addiction).

 

Conclusions:

 

7 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

6½ years' imprisonment.  Circumstances made it possible to surmise that Bevis was slightly lower down the supply chain than Wood: starting point therefore taken as 10½ years.

 

 

C.E. Whelan, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D.E. Le Cornu for A.J. Wood.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for A.M. Bevis.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.                  We do not need to repeat the Court's views about the scourge of drug trafficking and the appalling misery that drugs, especially heroin, can inflict upon the lives of those who become addicted and indeed upon the lives of their families too.  The policy of the Court is that severe punishment should be imposed on those who traffic in Class A drugs.

 

2.                  Stand up, please, Wood.  You deserve no sympathy.  You have a record for a drug trafficking offence and you were in this for money.  Your counsel was very wise to indicate your acceptance of the Crown Advocate's conclusions on count 3 which gave as much credit as was possible for the mitigating circumstances.  We have listened, however, to your counsel's submissions on counts 1 and 2 and those we have accepted.

 

3.                  The Court's sentence, therefore, is that on count 1, you are fined the sum of £100, or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment; on count 2, you are sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment; on count 3, you are sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.  All those sentences of imprisonment will be concurrent, making a total of 7 years' imprisonment.

 

4.                  Bevis, we have considered very carefully the submissions of your counsel.  We have no doubt that you and your co-accused were equally involved in the handling of this very substantial quantity of heroin.  However, the Court has taken into account a sentence from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Campbell & Ors -v- AG (1995) JLR 136 CofA, which indicated that the Court should take into account not only the amount and value of the drugs involved but also the nature and scale of the activity and any other factors showing the degree to which the defendant was concerned in drug trafficking.  We think that your addiction and the police evidence as to the number of occasions when you were at the site in Fountain Lane entitles us to take the view that you were at a marginally lower level of involvement than your co-accused.

 

5.                  We are going to take a starting point in your case of 10½ years' imprisonment and applying the same deductions as the Crown Advocate, on count 4, you are sentenced to 6½ years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

Campbell & Ors. -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

A.G. -v- Busby (20^th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported.