Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC171

royal court

(Samedi Division)

 

24^th September 2004 

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law, 1988 ('the Law')

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF

Ernest George Turner

 

Representation by the Attorney General, applying for an Order under Article 16C (1) of the Law, for the forfeiture of the proceeds of drug trafficking.

 

Ernest George Turner and Alexander James Justin Wakeham, Parties Convened

A.J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate on behalf of the Attorney General.

The Parties convened did not appear and were not represented

 

 

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Attorney General made pursuant to Article 16C(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 whereby he seeks to forfeit £9,900 in cash, which was found in the possession of Ernest George Turner on 25^th October 2003.

2.        The factual background is as follows: Turner flew into Jersey on 24^th October 2003.  He was stopped by Customs Officers, and had about £360 in his possession; he said he was coming to Jersey on a twenty four-hour shopping trip; he had no accommodation reserved; he said he was unemployed, and that there was a good selection of clothes at a shop called "Riva's" - apparently these clothes were unobtainable in Liverpool where he resided.  He said he had booked the ticket that morning and that his father had paid for it in the sum of some £366.  He was allowed to proceed.  The next day, the 25^th October, he was stopped and questioned while waiting to board a flight to Manchester.  When asked if he had anything to declare, he said he had £9,900 in his baggage.  His baggage was recovered and searched and, indeed, the sum of £9,900 was found wrapped in a plastic carrier bag and a blue towel.  The sum was in mixed denomination used English notes.  His explanation was that he collected the cash on behalf of a friend, named Alex Wakeham.  He said that he had received the cash that morning from a lawyer whom he had met in a vehicle near the marina.  He was unable to provide any further details relating to the lawyer, such as his name, nor had he any documents in relation to the money.  He said that upon his return to the U.K he expected to be contacted by Alex Wakeham who would make arrangements to collect the cash.  The Customs Officers then seized the cash and it has been detained under the statutory provisions since then. 

3.        On 10^th November, 2003, Customs Officer Luke Goddard received a telephone call from Alex Wakeham.  Wakeham would not provide details of his location but stated that he was going to surrender himself to the police that afternoon, which he later did.  I should add that it had been established that Wakeham had at this time absconded from the sentence of imprisonment which he was serving and to which we will refer to in a moment.  Wakeham told Officer Goddard that the cash seized from Turner belonged to him.  He said that too much emphasis was being put on the fact that he was a convicted drug trafficker.  He explained that the cash had been withdrawn from his bank account and represented the proceeds of a compensation claim.  He offered to provide bank statements to prove that this was the case; he was told that the money would not be returned until he had done so. 

4.        The summary of this conversation was recorded as an email which Officer Goddard sent to his colleagues.  It transpires that there was no contemporaneous note of the conversation, nor a file note.  We would, in passing, recommend to all those involved in matters of this nature, that if they receive a telephone call from somebody claiming cash which has been detained, a contemporaneous note of the conversation should be made, presumably by a hand written note whilst the conversation is going on, followed by a more detailed file note immediately thereafter.

5.        Following that conversation, Wakeham wrote to Customs in a letter dated 1^st December.  At that stage he simply requested documentation relating to the seizure and asserted that the money was not connected to drug trafficking.  Detective Inspector Faudemer, the head of the Joint Financial Crimes Unit of the States of Jersey (F.C.U), responded to Wakeham in a letter of 2^nd December.  He forwarded a copy of the order which permitted continued detention of the monies and requested Wakeham to provide evidence in relation to the ownership and provenance of the cash.  Wakeham then wrote on 14^th December.  This letter forwarded a copy of a bank statement which related to an account of his held at Lloyds TSB Bank in Jersey.  The bank statement indicated that there had been a cash withdrawal in the sum of £12,000 which had been made on 3^rd June 2003 at the Bank's Cross branch in Worcester.  Coincidently it was established that this was the same day that Wakeham had absconded from prison.

6.        On 6^th January 2004, Detective Inspector Faudemer wrote to Wakeham at H.M.P. Highpoint, to which Wakeham had been returned by this time, explaining that the withdrawal of £12,000 from the account in June, 2003, did not prove that the cash seized from Turner in October 2003 emanated from the same source.  He was requested to provide evidence of how the funds withdrawn in England were transferred to Jersey for collection by Turner and as to the whereabouts of the funds between the date of withdrawal and the date of seizure by Customs Officers in Jersey.

7.        Following that letter, Wakeham telephoned again -on 3^rd February - and spoke to Customs Officer Le Mercier.  He said that he was calling from prison in the U.K. and that he wished to discuss the return of his money.  During the call Wakeham asserted that, by producing a copy of his bank statement showing the withdrawal of £12,000, he had proved that the funds seized from Turner belonged to him.  Mr Le Mercier explained that the withdrawal of funds in his account in June, 2003, did not prove conclusively that the funds seized from Turner in October 2003 were of the same origin. 

8.        Wakeham stated that the funds should not have been seized, as people were allowed to be in possession of up to £10,000 in cash but it was explained to him that in Jersey there was no minimum amount and that every case was examined on its merits.  Wakeham asked what further proof was required for the return of the money.  Mr Le Mercier requested him to provide evidence as to how the cash withdrawn in Worcester had been transferred from England to Jersey, where the money had been placed whilst in Jersey, pending its collection, and how Turner had come to be in possession of the cash.  Wakeham said that, having taken legal advice, he was not willing to provide such evidence.  He said that he had done all that was required to prove the ownership of the cash and that should the Court order its forfeiture he would appeal the matter to the Privy Council.

9.        Wakeham was told that if he was unable or unwilling to provide further evidence in relation to the money, an application for forfeiture would be submitted to the Attorney General and he was advised to seek local legal representation.  Subject to one matter, to which we shall refer to in a moment, that was the last that the F.C.U heard from Wakeham on this topic.  He has not submitted any further evidence concerning the provenance of these funds.

10.      Enquiries continued and it was established that on 16^th May 2001, Wakeham had received £390,000 in settlement of a civil action brought against his employers as a result of an accident in which he lost the lower part of his leg.  Enquiries also showed that both Turner and Wakeham had previous convictions and we have been referred to these.  Turner does not have any previous drug convictions, but he does have previous convictions for dishonesty and has served a sentence of imprisonment.  As to Wakeham, he has some convictions and these include a conviction on 28^th October 1998 when he was sentenced to a total of eight years' imprisonment for offences of importation and possession of controlled drugs; and again on 4^th February 2000, he was sentenced to a further ten months, following a conviction for possession of controlled drugs.

11.      We remind ourselves of Article 16C of the Law which provides that the Court may order the forfeiture of money which has been seized, if satisfied that the money directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.  The standard of proof is the civil standard, namely on the balance of probabilities.

12.      In summary the Attorney General says that there is a compelling case for us to find that this cash was the proceeds of, or intended for use in, drug trafficking.  He refers first to the fact that Turner arrived in Jersey on 24^th October without accommodation booked; the explanation given for his visit, namely a twenty four hour shopping trip, and the better clothes available in "Rivas" were simply not credible; he was unemployed. 

13.      Secondly, he refers to the fact that on 25^th October, the next day, Turner was found with £9,900 in his possession.  The explanation he gave was that which we have already outlined, namely he had collected the cash from a lawyer whom he had met in a vehicle near the marina, but he could give no further details; there was no documentation.  The Attorney General submits that the explanation tendered by Turner as to the origin and ownership of this money was simply not credible.

14.      Thirdly, he refers to the fact that Wakeham has claimed ownership of the cash and has provided a bank statement showing a cash withdrawal of £12,000 on 3^rd June 2003, the day he absconded from prison, but that there is nothing to link this cash with the cash seized from Turner.  In particular, despite being requested and given every opportunity to do so, Wakeham has refused to explain how, or for what reason, the money was transferred to Jersey for collection by Turner or where the money was held pending its collection.  Furthermore, Wakeham has at no stage himself supported the story of the lawyer with the cash near the marina, as described by Turner.

15.      Fourthly, he relies on the fact that both have previous criminal records and, in particular, that Wakeham has a previous record which involves controlled drugs.  Next, he refers to the evidence of Detective Inspector Faudemer.  The inspector said that the fact that such a large percentage of the cash in this case consisted of £50 notes and £20 notes was a 'tell tale' sign, because heroin is sold in bags for which £50 is charged or bags for which £20 is charged, and it is therefore the case that drug dealers often have large quantities of £20 and £50 notes.

16.      Finally, we should refer to the fact that Mr Wakeham, although he had originally indicated that he was going to defend this matter, contacted the Attorney General's office yesterday and said that he would not be contesting the seizure order.  He was told that he ought to come to the Court and explain what his position was, but neither he nor Mr Turner have appeared today, despite having received notice of the hearing.

17.      We are satisfied that the arguments put forward by the Attorney General are convincing and they certainly convince the Court on the balance of probabilities that these funds were the proceeds of drug trafficking or intended for use in that connection. We find the explanations given to be wholly incredible, particularly given the complete lack of any supporting documentation in relation to any of the matters which have been put forward.  We are therefore satisfied, to the civil standard, that this money does directly or indirectly represent the proceeds of, or was intended for use in, drug trafficking and we so hold.  We furthermore make the order as requested, namely that these monies be forfeited and we authorise the Finance and Economics Committee to dispose of the monies and accrued interest in such matter as the Committee may direct.

(Discussion on costs followed)

18.      I think it is reasonable to make an order for costs.  Mr Wakeham opposed the order until yesterday.  Had he conceded at a much earlier stage, no hearing might have been necessary, so therefore I order taxed costs against Mr Wakeham.

No Authorities