Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC230A

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th December 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo, Le Breton, Clapham,, Morgan, Marett-Crosby and Le Brocq.

The Attorney General

-v-

Robert Llewelyn Thomas Allman-Jones

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

3 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, 2 and 5).

Age:  61.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Following a surveillance operation the accused was arrested early one evening on the boat he lived on in St Helier marina.  As he was escorted off the vessel an officer asked him whether there was anything on the boat which should not be there.  He replied "Look in the dinghy".  The dinghy was subsequently examined and the following drugs recovered:-

1.     A total of 129 bars of cannabis resin weighing approximately 30.8 kilos (wholesale value between £103,200 and £129,000 / street value £185,706) (Count 2). 

2.     18 slabs of compressed herbal material (skunk) weighing approximately 2.5 kilos ( wholesale value between £15,000 and £20,000 / street value £25,275) (Count 1). 

3.     12 plastic bags containing tablets and tablet material; equivalent to a total of 18,938 tablets of BZP/TFMPP (wholesale value £76,000 - £114,000 / street value £189,380) (Count 5). 

During interview the accused candidly admitted importing drugs.  He said he had sailed his boat to the north of Jersey the previous afternoon where he had swapped dinghies with another vessel.  He explained that 2½ years previously he had been diagnosed with cancer and given two weeks to live.  He had undertaken chemotherapy and his cancer had gone into remission.  His mother had died and had left him approximately £46,000, a small income from a trust fund and a half share in a flat.  He had adopted a playboy lifestyle during which he had spent a lot.  Having exhausted his inheritance he was loath to give up his lifestyle and had found himself owing money.  He had borrowed the money from a long-standing friend who lived in Southampton.  The man (who he refused to name) had lent him a total of £12,000.  He was looking for a quick fix and had been offered a solution.  He was to have been paid £5,000 for his part in the importation and onward distribution of the drugs.  He hoped also to receive expenses over and above this sum.  The accused said he had known he was importing a substantial quantity of cannabis but denied knowing there were any tablets involved and repeatedly said he would not become involved in the importation of Class A drugs.  He admitted part of the £12,000 debt (£2,000) represented a drug debt related to his use of cocaine.  He said he had not played any part in the concealment of the drugs and had not touched the drugs whilst in England arranging the importation.  The accused said he had played no part in purchasing the dinghy which had been swapped with his.  He admitted he had offered advice as to how the importation was going to be carried out.  He said he was to have been contacted by his friend within a couple of days of his return to the Island.  The drugs would then have been distributed using a couple of carrier bags at a time. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; remorse; serious medical condition (incurable malignant non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). 

Previous Convictions:

Record comprising three drink/drive convictions and a conviction in 1991, resulting in a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment relating to the importation of cannabis and LSD from Amsterdam to Kent (this in an attempt to solve financial difficulties). 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 2½ years.  18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 11 years.  7½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  7½ years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The accused had played a part in a sophisticated importation of a very substantial quantity of controlled drugs.  The drugs had been concealed in a dinghy.  There was no evidence that the accused had been involved in the concealment.  He claimed he thought he had been importing only cannabis.  Those importing drugs nevertheless took the risk that they might import something different to that which they thought they were importing. 

The importation had been for gain and had been instigated by the accused who had contacted a friend. 

The starting point policy was established.  These were very serious offences.  The starting point of 11 years' imprisonment on Count 2 taken by the Crown was (in light of Valler) right.  The accused had been trusted with a very valuable consignment of drugs.  He was not at the bottom of the supply chain. 

In mitigation the accused was entitled to credit for remorse.  He had volunteered his previous convictions (most of which had not been shown on the record initially supplied to the Crown).  He had the support of his sister and brother-in-law. 

The Court would normally have adopted the sentence of 7½ years' imprisonment.  However, in light of the medical reports it would impose a sentence of 6½ years' imprisonment. 

Sentence as follows:-

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  6½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Allman-Jones, you are here because you have played a part in the sophisticated importation of a very substantial quantity of drugs, approximately 31 kilograms of cannabis resin, 2.5 kilograms of herbal cannabis and 9,032 tablets of BZP and TFMPP, which are Class C drugs.  The wholesale value of the larger quantity of cannabis resin was between £103,000 and £129,000; of the herbal cannabis between £15,000 and £20,000 and of the BZP and TFMPP tablets between £76,000 and £114,000.  These drugs were brought into the Island in a dinghy on your boat.  You may not have been involved in the concealing of the drugs in the dinghy, and you have said through your counsel that you thought it was only cannabis that you were importing, but those who bring drugs into the Island take the risk if in fact they bring in something more or something different than what they expected.  It was clear that the importation was for financial gain and also clear that the importation was instigated by you in the sense that you went, on the story you gave police, to a friend of yours in Southampton and organised the importation. 

2.        We have taken those factors into account when looking at the starting point which we will apply.  You will know from what you have heard already that the Royal Court has an established policy for dealing with drug trafficking offences; they are taken very seriously in this Island.  From your time of living here, on and off for 11 years, you will have known that, from reading the reports in the media.  The starting point has been taken by the Crown at 10 years and then uplifted by 1 year applying the Valler principle because there was the importation of the BZP and TFMPP tablets at the same time.  We think that that was absolutely right and we therefore apply a starting point of 11 years.  You were trusted with a very large valued consignment and we think therefore in those circumstances that you were some way up the chain of supply and indeed, as I said, you instigated it by going to your friend on the mainland in the first place. 

3.        It is then down to us to consider the elements of mitigation on your behalf and we take into account the remorse which you have expressed and your letter to this Court; we have certainly taken into account your volunteering of your previous conviction for drug trafficking, and the Court certainly also appreciates the support which has been shown to you by your sister and your brother-in-law.  Nevertheless, you have not co-operated by identifying those higher up the chain and in the circumstances we would have thought that the correct sentence was that moved for by the Crown of 7½ years' imprisonment in relation to Count 2.  But we have looked at the report of Doctor Mattock and we take into account in particular therefore the risk of the non-Hodgkin's cancer progressing and for that reason only the Court is going to exercise a degree of mercy. 

4.        In the circumstances you are sentenced to 6½ years' imprisonment on Count 2 on the Indictment which is the most serious of the counts which you face.  In relation to Count 1 the sentence is 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent as moved for by the Crown; in relation to Count 5 we think the sentence moved for by the Crown was too high because the maximum sentence for a Class C drug is 5 years' imprisonment and we therefore sentence you to 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.  That makes a total of 6½ years' imprisonment. 

5.        We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

Valler-v-AG [2002] JLR 383.

AG-v-Scobie [2004] JRC 201.

AG-vSchneider [2005] JRC 141.

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

AG-v-Graham [2009] JRC 240.

AG-v-Spinola [2010] JRC 100.