Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/229

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

17^th November, 2000

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

Jurats de Veulle and Bullen

 

The Attorney General

-v-

David Camacho Sa

 

 

1 count of:   being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:

                    Count 1: cannabis resin.

 

2 counts of:  possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    Count 2: cannabis resin.

                    Count 4: cannabis resin.

 

4 counts of:  possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    Count 3: cannabis resin.

                    Count 5: cannabis resin.

                    Count 6: methadone.

                    Count 7: cannabis resin.

[On 25^th August, 2000, the accused, having pleaded guilty to counts 2, 4 and 7, the Crown withdrew the remaining counts].

 

Age:    24.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

On 29^th April, 2000, the accused and his girlfriend were observed leaving Jersey with the accused's vehicle travelling on the ferry to France.  They returned on 2^nd May, 2000, when the accused was kept under observation by police officers.  He was observed visiting a number of addresses and, finally, visited his parents' address in St. Peter's Valley.  His parents were absent from the Island on holiday.  The parents' property included a garage/shed.  The accused was detained whilst sitting in a van in a car park in St. Peter's Valley and, when the van was searched, 8 bars of cannabis resin were found on the passenger seat.  Search warrants were obtained for the various properties that the accused had attended and at the address of the girlfriend of the accused a personal amount of cannabis resin totalling 4.81 grams was found and the accused admitted that this was his.  The search of the parents' address and, in particular, the shed located a carrier bag containing 32 bars of cannabis.  Under interview, the accused admitted that he had travelled to Amsterdam with his girlfriend, although she had not known the true purpose of the visit.  A friend of the accused had asked if the accused was interested in permitting the use of the shed at his parents' address to store cannabis.  The accused was told that he would not be involved in any importation or supply of the cannabis, but that he would be paid for the use of the shed.  He was also told that, if he invested in the enterprise, then he would double his investment.  The accused's telephone number was passed to a third party in Amsterdam who would contact the accused.  The arrangement was that the accused would take £2,000 in cash to Amsterdam and some "Spar" carrier bags.  The accused stated that he took a mobile phone with him, but used a different SIM card to avoid detection.  Whilst in Amsterdam, he handed over four plastic bags and £2,000 in cash and was told that, upon his return to Jersey, eight bars of cannabis resin would be hanging up in the shed.  Upon his return to Jersey, the accused was in the course of delivering the eight bars of cannabis to a friend, when he was arrested.  There had been an importation of 40 bars of cannabis, but it was accepted that the importation had been effected by a person or persons unknown.  The street value for the 40 bars was stated to be £57,600 with a wholesale value of £43,200.  The Crown Advocate contended that this was a significant commercial amount of cannabis and that the accused's involvement had been relatively high.  His motivation for his involvement was financial greed and the admission that he had used a different SIM card on his mobile phone indicated a degree of sophistication and planning on his part.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The accused had pleaded guilty, although, insofar as concerns the 2 kilograms of cannabis resin found in the vehicle at the time of his arrest, such a plea was inevitable.  He was co-operative and, although initially denied any involvement with the 8 kilograms found in the shed, he subsequently entered a plea of guilty to that count.  He did have a criminal record, albeit for minor motoring offences, and, therefore, for sentencing purposes the Crown was prepared to treat him as being of good character.  He was also entitled to credit for his residual youth.  Defence counsel contended that the profit to have been made by the accused was relatively small and was disproportionate to the size and street value of the drugs seized.  It was contended that he was at a low risk of re-offending and his incarceration had been a salutary lesson.  Defence counsel referred to the totality principle in relation to the consecutive sentence asked for by the Crown on count 3 and contended that a total sentence of three years would be appropriate.

Previous Convictions:

 

Five previous convictions for motoring offences.  The accused had never received a custodial sentence and, as noted, he was treated for the purposes of sentencing as being of good character by the Crown.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 2: 3 years 6 months' imprisonment.

Count 4: 3 years 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 7: 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

TOTAL: 3 years 9 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Count 2: 3 years' imprisonment.

Count 4: 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Count 7: 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

TOTAL: 3 years' imprisonment.

 

The accused had behaved foolishly and had let himself and his family down.  The accused was guilty of an offence of drug trafficking a substantial amount of cannabis resin in order to make money and there was no alternative to a custodial sentence.  However, the Court took into account the totality principle and agreed that the sentence on count 3 should be concurrent.  The Court also felt able to make a greater allowance for mitigation available than the Crown has done and, in particular, the fact that he was a first time drug offender and had the benefit of residual youth.

 

 

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

Advocate A.D. Hoy for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            Sa, you have behaved foolishly and you have let down yourself and your family.  More importantly, perhaps, you have behaved criminally in being party to an offence of drug trafficking involving a substantial amount of cannabis resin with a view to making money.  The Court has, therefore, no option but to sentence you to a term of imprisonment.

 

2.            We have taken into account what your counsel has said on your behalf and we agree that the sentence on count 7 should be concurrent rather than consecutive.  We are also prepared to make a rather greater allowance than the Crown Advocate did for the mitigating factors, first, that this is the first time you will have been sentenced to a prison term and, secondly, that you are still a relatively young man.  The sentence of the Court is that, on count 2, you will be sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment; on count 4, to 3 years' imprisonment, concurrent; on count 7, to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3 years' imprisonment.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie (1995) JLR 136 CofA.

 

Archbold (2000 Ed'n): para. 5-150: p.549.