Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC109

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26^th July 2006

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq, Tibbo, Bullen, Georgelin, Clapham and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Martin Edward Gaish

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, after conviction by the Inferior Number on 22^nd May, 2006.

10 counts of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.  (Counts 1 - 4 and 6 -11, Count 5 having been withdrawn).

Age:  58.

Plea: Guilty to Count 11.  Not guilty to Counts 1 to 4, 6 to 10.

Details of Offence:

Defendant convicted on "not guilty" Counts after Inferior Number trial on 22^nd May, 2006.  

Facts of Count 11:  Defendant employed as van driver for mail order company in England, Instant Help.  He packed cannabis into parcels and put the parcels in the Instant Help UPS Collection Service for delivery to Jersey.  On 8^th September 2005, Defendant took day-return flight from Gatwick to Jersey, travelling with no luggage.  He went into St. Helier and intercepted the UPS driver.  He signed for the parcel he had packed at Instant Help in a false name and met up with another English resident, Mr Stewart, in a bar in Halkett Place.  The pair were arrested.  Defendant carrying £3,970 in cash and a cheque in the sum of £3,000 payable to Mr Stewart.  Parcel found to contain 4.91 kilos of cannabis.  On 7^th October 2005 Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of importing cannabis in the Magistrate's Court.  Further investigations were then undertaken.  This resulted in another 10 Counts being placed on Indictment on 3^rd March 2006.  Defendant used same modus operandi in Count 11 to effect a further ten importations of cannabis into Jersey over a ten month period. All deliveries to one of two addresses in Jersey and to one of three false names.  Total amount of cannabis imported approximately 46.6 kilograms.  Further consideration of the application for confiscation order was adjourned in accordance with Article 4 (4) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 to 24^th November 2006, Defendant having indicated he intended to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea (to Count 11).  No previous criminal convictions.  Various personal references.  Defendant had served equivalent sentence of 1 year 3 months 25 days on remand in custody.

Previous Convictions:

None

Conclusions:

Count 1 - 4 and 6 - 10:	10 years' imprisonment.
Count 11:	9 years' imprisonment , all concurrent.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1 - 4, 6 - 10::	9 years' imprisonment.
Count 11:	6 years' imprisonment, all concurrent.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered.

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You imported approximately 46.6 kilos of cannabis resin into Jersey over a period of about 10 months.  The importations involve 10 separate occasions but on each one the method used was the same.  You arranged for the package to be sent by courier to a fictitious individual at one of two addresses in Jersey.  On the expected day of delivery you flew to Jersey for the day, you took delivery from the courier of the package and then no doubt passed it on to the connections in Jersey for onward sale.

2.        We must consider first of all a starting point and in the case of Campbell and Ors -v- AG [1995] JLR 136 it suggests 10 years and upwards for more than 30 kilos.  Here, there were ten small importations but we have got to have regard to the total amount and take account also of the number of occasions.  Rather than a number of consecutive sentences we think the right course is to fix upon concurrent sentences and, taking into account the total amount of the drug and the nature and scale of your involvement and the repeated involvement, we agree that 11 years is the correct starting point.

3.        In mitigation if I deal simply with those where you pleaded not guilty we certainly take into account that you have up until now been a man of good character with no previous convictions.  You have a good work record, good family life, you are at low risk of re-offending and this whole batch of offending seems to be completely out of character.  Nevertheless, it was serious and repeated offending and in the circumstances a lengthy sentence is called for but we think that a slightly greater discount can be allowed than is allowed by the Crown.

4.        The sentence on all of the counts to which you pleaded "not guilty" is one of 9 years' imprisonment.  In relation to count 11 there is the additional mitigation of your having pleaded guilty, and we think an additional 3 years is correct for that and, therefore, on count 11 the sentence is one of 6 years' imprisonment.  All of those to be concurrent and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Campbell and Ors -v- AG [1995] JLR 136.