Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class B.

[2017]JRC166

Royal Court

(Samedi)

10 October 2017

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Blampied, Ramsden, Thomas, Pitman and Marett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher John Munce

Alan Christopher Smith

Paul Francis George Wilson

Keith Norris

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 24^th August, 2017, following guilty pleas to the following charge:

Christopher John Munce

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:  62. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Munce, Smith, Wilson and Norris were involved in the importation of 26·177 kilos of cannabis resin, Smith bringing the drugs ashore near Les Laveurs slipway in St Ouen's Bay under cover of darkness while Wilson stayed on the larger boat.  Munce was arrested as he attempted to leave the area in a hire car with the two holdalls of drugs on the back seat; Norris, who had helped carry the drugs to the car, escaped into the darkness - fled back to the UK later that morning.  Smith was arrested on the beach as he returned to his dinghy, Wilson was arrested on board Smith's 26 foot fast fishing boat which was moored close inshore.  Street value of drugs estimated between £392,600 - £523,500 (min. wholesale value £107,600).

Details of Mitigation:

Munce: previously successful, had suffered poor health and consequent reduced income, any financial reward would have been used to pay bills and living expenses.  Subsequent to interview, provided three statements in which he provided background information relating to the importation, the involvement of those concerned and the individual who had asked him to arrange the transportation of the cannabis.  Expressed remorse.

Previous Convictions:

Save for one motoring offence in 2013 was of previous good character.

Conclusions:

The Crown took a starting point of 8½ years' imprisonment for all defendants.

Count 1:

Starting point 8½ years' imprisonment.  4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £1,474.31.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendants were allowed full credit for their pleas.  Munce, Smith and Wilson had all named supplier and deserved substantial additional credit for that.

Count 1:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation hearing fixed for 3^rd January, 2018, at 10am. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Alan Christopher Smith

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:  61. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Munce above.

Details of Mitigation:

Smith: blamed his use of painkillers and related cannabis misuse subsequent to two surgical operations for clouding his judgment, leading to him agreeing to become involved; express apology to Court, saying he had difficulty believing his own stupidity in becoming involved, having fully intended to stay out of further trouble after last sentence.  Also accepted responsibility for involving Wilson.

Previous Convictions:

100 previous offences to his name, including two for trafficking in commercial quantities of amphetamines, attracting sentences of 8 years' imprisonment in Belgium and 9 years' imprisonment in the UK.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 8½ years' imprisonment.  5 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £397.72.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendants were allowed full credit for their pleas.  Munce, Smith and Wilson had all named supplier and deserved substantial additional credit for that.

Count 1:

Starting point 10 years' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order made in the sum of £397.72.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Paul Francis George Wilson

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:  62. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Munce above.

Details of Mitigation:

Wilson: agreed that he had looked after the holdalls for a couple of weeks prior to the importation after visiting Smith to collect wages and later succumbed, under influence of alcohol, to temptation of £1,000 payment for his assistance.

Previous Convictions:

Three previous offences of a minor nature and no relevance.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 8½ years' imprisonment.  4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendants were allowed full credit for their pleas.  Munce, Smith and Wilson had all named supplier and deserved substantial additional credit for that.

Count 1:

Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order made in the nominal sum of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Keith Norris

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:  54. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Munce above.

Details of Mitigation:

Norris: brought not interviewed, said he would have returned if asked.  Guilty plea valuable, expressed genuine remorse in letter before the Court.  Social Enquiry Report indicated some positive aspects of his life.  Back from UK on warrant therefore.

Previous Convictions:

25 previous offences, mainly historic, mostly dishonesty, had served substantial custodial sentence in his late 20s', 2 minor offences and one caution since.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

Starting point 8½ years' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order sought in the nominal sum of £1. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendants were allowed full credit for their pleas.  Munce, Smith and Wilson had all named supplier and deserved substantial additional credit for that.

Count 1:

Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  5 years' imprisonment.

Confiscation Order made in the nominal sum of £1.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. M. Harrison for Munce.

Advocate M. L. Preston for Smith.

Advocate S. E. A Dale for Wilson.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Norris.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The defendants are here on a joint charge of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the importation of a controlled drug, cannabis resin, and the facts are that Mr Munce and Mr Norris came to the Island in advance, Mr Munce on 13^th April and Mr Norris on 20^th April.  Mr Norris was booked in for two nights' accommodation and Mr Munce had hired a car.  On the evening of the 20^th April and in the early hours of the 21^st April, a boat arrived in St Ouen's Bay and it was piloted by Mr Smith and by Mr Wilson as a crew member.  On it there was a substantial amount of cannabis weighing 26.177 kilograms.  There were 269 brown taped wrapped packages.  The cannabis was landed by Mr Smith and Customs were able to apprehend both Mr Smith and Mr Munce and later Mr Wilson.  Mr Norris escaped and was only arrested and brought back on a warrant considerably later. 

2.        The first question for us is to look at the starting point in relation to this offence.  We applied the test laid down in Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136, that is to say we look at the quantity of drugs involved at just over 26 kilograms which puts it in the range of a 6 to 10 year starting point, and we have to have regard to the involvement of each defendant in drug trafficking.  The Crown has taken the view that the same starting point should be applied to each defendant.  We do not take that view.  On the facts that we have had presented to us we think the involvement in drug trafficking was greater in the case of Mr Munce and Mr Smith and less in the case of Mr Wilson and Mr Norris, but we also think that in any event the Crown's starting point at 8½ years was too low. 

3.        Stopping just there for a moment, and explaining why Mr Smith and Mr Munce we think had a greater involvement; first of all Mr Munce clearly was involved for a week in the sense that he came over on 13^th April and it is accepted by his counsel that he was due to be paid a fee of £7,000 for the arrangements which he was making for the distribution of the drugs in the Island once they had arrived.  As far as Mr Smith is concerned, his previous convictions for drug trafficking as well as the quantity involved, as well as the fact that he was responsible for bringing the drugs over to the Island, all put him very much at the centre of the importation and we do not accept the suggestion from Advocate Preston, his counsel, that Mr Smith should be treated as a mere courier.  As to Mr Wilson and Mr Norris, Mr Wilson was still closely involved in the arrangements in the sense that he acted as minder for the drugs for some two weeks and he knew that they were to be brought over on the boat when he agreed to be a crewman.  Mr Norris, we also think, was involved in the arrangements for drug trafficking and not simply at the last moment, as his counsel has suggested, and in reaching that conclusion we take into account the nature of the text messages that passed between him and Mr Munce and the text messages which later passed between him and Mr Smith.  We also take into account the length of time that he was to be in the Island.  So having regard to that, we take starting points of 10 years' imprisonment for both Mr Munce and Mr Smith, and starting points of 9 years' imprisonment for Mr Wilson and Mr Norris. 

4.        It is clear that Mr Munce and Mr Smith and Mr Wilson have all publically named their supplier and they are entitled to particular credit in that respect.  The Court has said on many previous occasions naming the supplier in open court is a very substantial piece of mitigation indeed and we take fully that into account.  We also, of course, take into account their guilty pleas and note that a full allowance of guilty plea has been suggested by counsel for the Crown, which on one analysis might be regarded as generous having regard to the fact in the case of Mr Smith and Mr Munce that they were very much caught, as it were, in the act and therefore the proof of the importation would not have been particularly difficult.  But we had regard to the guilty plea and all that is contained in the social enquiry report by way of personal mitigation and everything that has been said by counsel, indeed, having regard to all the documentation which is before the Court.

5.        Taking all those matters into account we think the sentences ought to be as follows.

6.        Mr Munce, you are sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment.  

7.        Mr Smith, you are sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment. 

8.        Mr Norris, you are sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment.  It would have been at 4½ but for the fact that you absconded and sought to evade arrest.  

9.        Mr Wilson, you are sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment.  

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

11.      Mr Munce, in connection with you as suggested by the Crown and your counsel, we fix 10am on 3^rd January for a directions hearing to consider further the question of a Confiscation Order. 

Authorities

Campbell-v-AG [1995] JLR 136. 

AG-v-Clark [2016] JRC 094B. 

AG-v-Tomsett [2016] JRC 166D. 

AG-v-Capriglione [2016] JRC 218C.