Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC100

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27^th May 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veuelle, Le Breton, Morgan, Kerley and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Tony Spinola

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 23^rd April, 2010, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

3 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 2, 6 and 10).
4 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Counts 3, 4, 7 and 11).

Age:  33.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Early one morning police officers attended 57B Clearview Street (the accused's home address) to execute a drugs warrant.  The accused was apprehended outside and found to be carrying four wraps of cocaine (2.27g - street value £320) (Count 2).  He was taken to Police Headquarters and searched.  From his person, officers recovered £1,000 in cash in his jacket pocket, £590 in cash in his trouser pocket and a further £20 in cash in his wallet.  Also recovered was a lump of cannabis resin (4.63g "pollen" - street value £50) (Count 4). 

Meanwhile other officers executed the warrant at 57B Clearview Street.  From a drawer in the lounge coffee table they recovered further cannabis resin (2.7g - value £15.12) (Count 3).  From the pocket of a pair of men's jeans in the bedroom they recovered £480 in cash.  Also recovered from a sock drawer was a yellow piece of paper with writing on it. 

Later that morning other officers attended Jersey Steel (the accused's workplace).  With keys recovered from the accused they opened lockers 2, 3, and 4 in the staff restroom.  Locker 3 was empty.  From lockers 2 and 4 they recovered a total of 6,284 BZP/TFMPP tablets and broken down and powdered tablet material (street value £62,840) (Count 6), 881.24g of cannabis resin (mostly "pollen" - street value £7,270) (Count 10), 540 Methandienone tablets (street value £54) (Count 7) and a single MDMA tablet (street value £10) (Count 11). 

Expert police evidence estimated the wholesale value of all the drugs recovered in the case as between £30,000 and £40,000 (giving an approximate potential profit range of between £32,000 and £42,000). 

During interview the accused maintained the £1,000 recovered from his person represented money paid cash in hand by a mate he had helped painting and decorating.  He eventually admitted buying 4g of cocaine at £90 a gram the previous evening and said he intended taking the drugs.  He denied any of the cash recovered from him represented the proceeds of trafficking in cocaine.  He further denied minding the drugs or intending to supply them.  The accused said the £50 cash recovered from his person represented spending money. 

As the interview progressed the accused admitted the cannabis recovered from his person and his home belonged to him.  With the exception of the locker keys he identified all the keys recovered from his person and his home. 

The accused confirmed he had tried some of the cocaine the previous evening.  He said he had taken cocaine before but used it only once in a blue moon.  He confirmed he was a user of cannabis and said he also took ecstasy - although very rarely.  He claimed the cash recovered from his room had come from his bank.  He admitted the yellow piece of paper with writing on it could be his but said he didn't know what it was. 

After a break in the interview the accused exercised his right to answer no comment.  He repeated this when further interviewed the following day. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, remorse. 

Previous Convictions:

Record comprising drug related offending, including a conviction in 2004 for supplying cannabis resin and possessing cannabis resin, with intent to supply, to which the accused was sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment. 

Conclusions:

Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	3½ years'' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	1 year's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 11:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £11,393.84. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The accused stood to be sentenced in relation to seven Counts involving a mixture of class A, B, and C drugs.  The most serious Count involved the possession of cocaine, with intent to supply.  The BZP/TFMPP tablets were the most valuable drugs in the case.  Expert police evidence estimated the total wholesale value of the drugs at between £30,000 and £40,000 (giving an estimated potential profit of between £32,000 and £42,000).  The accused had a record containing five previous drug related convictions.  He had betrayed the trust placed in him by his partner's child who had been sent to school knowing that a search of her home was underway. 

The Court considered all sentences in the case should run concurrently.  In relation to Count 2 the 7 year starting point was correct.  It was clear the accused had sold drugs to supplement his income and satisfy his habit.  Full discount should be given for the guilty pleas.  On the other hand the accused had been caught in possession and there was limited scope for pleas of not guilty.  The following sentences would be imposed:-

Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

Confiscation Order made in the sum of £11,393.84.

A. J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Gilbert for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced today for a variety of drugs offences reflected in the 7 Counts on the Indictment in respect of which you have pleaded guilty.  The drugs are a mix of class A, class B and class C drugs.  The most serious Count is that of possession of cocaine with intent to supply as it is a class A drug. 

2.        In terms of value, the most valuable drugs were the BZP and TFMPP tablets which are the subject of Count 6.  The total value of the drugs in wholesale terms was put between £30,000 and £40,000 and the police expert evidence put the approximate potential profit range at between £32,000 and £42,000.  You have five previous convictions for drug offences, two of them for drug trafficking offences. 

3.        The Court has noted that you have betrayed the trust of your partner's child, who was sent off to school knowing the police were searching her home. 

4.        On the other side of the coin, the Court considers that all these offences should attract concurrent sentences.  The Court considers the starting point of 7 years in respect of the possession of cocaine with intent to supply is correct, although there would have been a case for taking a higher starting point given the material that has been provided to the Court, and also taking into account your counsel's acceptance that, on your behalf, you would occasionally sell some drugs to supplement income and to fund your own habit. 

5.        As to mitigation we have noted that you entered a guilty plea on the Indictment and you entered it at a point where normally, in our view, it would have given rise to a full discount for that piece of mitigation.  However, we have also taken into account the fact that you were caught in possession of the cocaine which would suggest that the scope for a not guilty plea was limited.  Nonetheless, substantial credit for the guilty plea is allowed.  Taking that into account and taking into account all the points made by your counsel and all the documents before the Court, we think that the Crown's conclusions are correct although we may not have followed precisely the same route on analysis as the Crown followed. 

6.        In the circumstances we therefore sentence you as follows:- on Count 2; 4 years' imprisonment, on Count 3; 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 4; 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 6; 3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 7; 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 10; 1 year's imprisonment, concurrent, and on Count 11; 1 week's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 4 years' imprisonment. 

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

Authorities

Rimmer, Lusk and Bade [2001] JLR 373.

Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136.

AG-v-Mooney and Cunningham [2010] JRC 030.

Bonnar and Noon-v-AG [2001] JLR 262.

AG-v-Graham [2009] JRC 240.