Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC079

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

13^th April 2011

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner and Jurats Tibbo, Le Breton, Le Cornu, Liddiard, Nicolle and Le Brocq.

The Attorney General

-v-

Edward George Sandland

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 4^th March, 2011, following guilty pleas to the following charge:

1 count of:	Attempted possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1A).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 2).

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

A postal importation of 4.94 grams of heroin containing 29 percent diamorphine and with street value of £5,000 was seized by customs officers at Postal Headquarters.  A "dummy" package was delivered to the stated address and surveillance undertaken. 

The defendant was seen to enter the premises and leave after a matter of seconds.  He was kept under surveillance but was lost from sight for a while and when eventually arrested did not have the package.  The package was not at the premises.  It was noted that he had ultraviolet marker on his hands and on the handlebar of his scooter, thus indicating that he had opened and handled the package and therefore had disposed of the same. 

The defendant went "no comment" in interview but subsequently admitted that he had been asked to collect the package and take it to another unspecified address.  He knew the package contained drugs but he did not know that it was a postal package.  He claimed that he was to benefit financially and also to receive some of the drugs for his own personal use. 

The Crown contended that he was more than a mere courier whose role was simply to take the drugs from A to B.  It was therefore to be inferred that he was close to the ultimate source/receiver of the drugs as he had sufficient authority to open the package, examine the contents and to dispose of them. 

The Crown took a starting point under the Rimmer Guidelines of 7½ years' imprisonment. 

Count 2 related to 826mg of cannabis resin with a street value of £5 found at his home address. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

The only mitigation of substance with his guilty plea entered on Indictment.  He did not have benefit of youth or good character.  There was nothing by way of additional mitigation provided by the Social Enquiry Report. 

Defence

The defence suggested the starting point should be lower for the small quantity of heroin involved.  He was acting as courier.  Confirmed that he was to receive a financial benefit and some part of the heroin: Emphasised guilty plea.  A letter of remorse provided and a letter of support from father who was ill: Had lapsed back into drug use which resulted in loss of employment, loss of girlfriend and incurring of debt.  He was using time in custody constructively.  He appeared remorseful.  The Crown's conclusions were too high. 

Previous Convictions:

10 convictions for a total of 44 offences including 6 previous offences for drug offences, including conspiracy to import and personal possession, illegal entry, larceny, assault, public order and motoring offences. 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1A:	Starting point 7½ years.  5 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The facts of this offence were agreed by counsel.  The defendant to be sentenced for attempted possession with intent to supply approximately 5 grams of heroin with a street value of £5,000.  He had been asked to collect the package and take it to another address knowing it contained illegal drugs.  He was not a mere courier as he had opened the package before it was delivered which is not the normal role of a courier.  The Court was entitled to infer more heavily involved in drug trafficking than a mere courier.  He would have received a financial benefit and also a personal amount of the drugs.  The defendant had a bad record including an offence of conspiracy to import a substantial quantity of cannabis for which he received a sentence of 5½ years.  The Crown has suggested a starting point of 7½ years' imprisonment and the defence said that this was too high.  The Court identified the relevant sentencing band in the case of Rimmer being 1-20 grams of heroin equated to 7-9 years' imprisonment.  On balance the Court considered the correct starting point to be 7 years.  He had pleaded guilty and had expressed remorse.  The Court had read the letter from the defendant and from the father.  The Court sympathised with the medical position of the father.  The Court was pleased to note that he was using custody positively and the Court encouraged him to pursue such courses as he would have better prospects of employment upon release and therefore hopefully he would be in a better position to avoid returning to drugs.  The Court applied the same mitigation as had the Crown. 

Count 1A:	Starting point 7 years.  4½ years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4½ years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced on a factual basis agreed between Counsel for an offence of attempted possession with intent to supply of nearly 5 grams of heroin with a street value of £5,000.  The defendant had been asked to collect a package from one address and to take it to another, knowing that the package contained illegal drugs.  He is not, however, a mere courier, in that forensic evidence shows that he opened the package before it was delivered, which is not the usual conduct of a courier.  The Court is entitled to infer that he was more heavily involved in drug trafficking than a person who is just a mule.  The offence was committed for financial gain and in the expectation that he would receive some of the drug for personal use. 

2.        Sandland has a bad criminal record, including a conviction for conspiracy to import a very substantial quantity of cannabis, for which he was sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment.  The Crown Advocate took a starting point of 7½ years' imprisonment; Mr Bell suggested that the starting point was too high.  The guideline case of Rimmer and Others-v-AG [2001] JLR 373, gives a band for 1-20 grams of powdered drugs of 7-9 years' imprisonment.  On balance the Court considers, notwithstanding the opening of the package, that he appropriate starting point is one of 7 years. 

3.        Sandland has pleaded guilty to the Indictment and expressed remorse for the predicament in which he finds himself. 

4.        The Court has read your letter and the letter from your father, and obviously it sympathises with the medical problems that your father has, but as you state in your letter these are the kind of difficulties with which many families have to cope.  We are glad that during your time in custody, on remand, you have been doing courses, in particular the carpentry course, and we would encourage you to continue doing that so that when you come out of prison you will have a better prospect of employment and you will be better able to break the connections that have led you into drug taking in the past. 

5.        We are going to apply the same amount of mitigation as moved for by the Crown Advocate and you are accordingly sentenced on Count 1A to 4½ years' imprisonment, on Count 2 to 1 month's imprisonment, both concurrent, a total of 4½ years' imprisonment. 

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

Authorities

Rimmer and Others-v-AG [2001] JLR 373.

AG-v-Sandland [2003] JRC 111.