Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC128

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24^th June 2009

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff and Jurats Clapham and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Kevin Beattie

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count 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.  (Count 1).

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 13^th March, 2009, Customs Officers at the Elizabeth Terminal stopped a silver Nissan Micra which had just disembarked from the Weymouth ferry, carrying the defendant and his partner, Julie Arnott.

Beattie said that they had travelled from Newcastle and intended to stay the night in Jersey, but had no accommodation booked.  Initial drug swab tests on them both indicated the presence of cannabis and cocaine and officers began to search the car.  Soon after the search had begun, Beattie walked to the side of the car, indicated the nearside rear door and said "I might as well tell you, take that panel off, it's in there".

After removing the door panel, 15 brown resinous bars were found.  Some time later 25 further bars were removed from the cavity in the offside rear door panel.  When analysed, it was confirmed that the packages contained a total of 9.98 kg of cannabis resin.  Both Beattie and Arnott were arrested.  In interview, Beattie made admissions as to his involvement in the importation.

Beattie, a regular user of cocaine, had become indebted to his dealer.  As a result, he borrowed £3,400 from a loan shark, half of which was to pay off his dealer, half was to pay off other debts.  As a result of failing to pay off the debt, he feared physical violence.  He was asked to visit Jersey, initially to collect monies, and on this last occasion to import cannabis.

The pattern of these trips was the same.  Beattie was contacted by the organisers one or two days beforehand.  A ferry was booked, and on arrival Beattie would telephone a contact number before driving to a location near Snow Hill.  The cash that he had to take back to England would be handed over, together with money for Beattie's hotel and travel expenses.  The cash, which amounted to tens of thousands of pounds, would be concealed in the rear door of Beattie's car.  This had happened three times previously, prior to the final trip, the drug importation, when he was arrested.

Once he had returned to England he would drop off his car for the cash to be taken out.  Later he would be given sums of money, in Jersey notes, to put into his bank, then withdraw as English money and return it to the organisers.  From bank records it is estimated that over £10,000 was deposited in his account in this manner.

On the final trip he was told that he would be importing cannabis.  He said that his fiancée accompanied him for the final trip but that she knew nothing about the drugs.  She was released without charge soon after interview.

Details of Mitigation:

Previous good character, guilty plea, co-operative.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 6 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

30 months' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has pleaded guilty to the importation of 10 grams of cannabis resin secreted in the door panel of a car which he brought on the ferry to St Helier.  He has no connections with Jersey other than other trips which he admitted making in the past for the purpose of collecting cash which he laundered in England.  There is no doubt that he knew precisely what he was doing and that it was unlawful to bring controlled drugs into the island.

2.        In mitigation, Beattie has pleaded guilty.  He was candid and co-operative in interview and most importantly perhaps, he is of previous good character.  We accept the submission of his Advocate that he got out of his depth in his dealings with his supplier and with a loan shark from whom he borrowed money and which drove him to commit this offence.  We are glad to note that he has been working constructively in the prison during the remand period. 

3.        We agree with the Crown Advocate that the appropriate starting point is one of 6 years' imprisonment.  Having regard to all the mitigating factors, we are prepared to allow slightly more by way of deduction than was allowed by the Crown Advocate. 

4.        We have read the references which your Advocate has placed before us and they are extremely good references and they speak highly to your character, in particular the reference from your parents whom, as you will realise, you have let down very badly.  It will be difficult for you, we think, when you come out of prison but we hope that you have the strength of character to keep away from your previous associates and not to let down your fiancée and to make something of your life in the future.  You have a lot to lose and we hope that you show that strength of character.  In the meantime we have to punish you for the offence which you committed.

5.        The sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 30 months.

6.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.