Jersey Unreported Judgments

 [2003]JRC162

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

15^th September 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Shaun Paul Harkin;

Joanne Margaret Kemp

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 25th July, 2003, on guilty pleas to the following counts:

 

Shaun Paul Harkin

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: diamorphine

                                   

Age:     25

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

Kemp and Harkin (boyfriend an girlfriend) were coerced by threats (including a gun) to import heroin concealed internally (Harkin - 3 packages totalling 84.07 grams (total 'street' value between £25,221 and £37,830 - wholesale value between £12,609 and £16,814) and Kemp 3 packages totalling 82.91 grams (total 'street' value between £24,873 and £37,308 - wholesale value between £12,435 and £16,582).  Accused accompanied on their journey to the island by the two dealers who had supplied them and had been present when they had secreted the drugs internally in Scotland.  On arrival by boat they initially gave a false story.  Having been arrested and detained they were later co-operative during interview and were prepared to name their suppliers.  Both knew the other was carrying heroin and that it was illegal to import heroin into the Island.  Crown prepared to proceed on the basis that the accused were 'mules'.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Both heroin addicts (now recovering).  In both cases importation carried out under threat to cancel joint drug debt of £200.  No attempt to profit financially.  Guilty pleas (although considered inevitable).  In both cases accused had been prepared to name their suppliers and to allow this fact to be mentioned in open Court.  Whilst not leading to any convictions this did help lead to seizure of cash in the sum of £8,647.57 from the persons named when they travelled back to the United Kingdom a few days later.  Drug and Alcohol Report described Harkin as "an immature and dependant personality", Harkin's GP described him as a "rather feckless but not a bad young man".  Kemp described in Drug and Alcohol report as "emotionally immature" and "gullible".  Probation report described Kemp as giving impression of being a naïve and unworldly person who would have been an easy target for this type of crime.  Kemp had a particularly tragic background.  Her mother died when she was aged 13.  At age 18 her best male friend (not boyfriend) died after being stabbed.  She subsequently gave evidence at the trial of the person accused of the stabbing.  Thereafter she formed a relationship with a man with whom she had a child (now aged 9 - in care of the father).  This relationship had been violent and disturbed.  She had been forced to take Court proceedings against her partner and as a result had been placed under police protection.  She had subsequently formed a relationship with a man who had also been stabbed to death.  At this time she had turned from cannabis to heroin.  She had a 21 month old child with her now co-accused (in the care of Harkin's family).  Remorse expressed in letter passed to the Court.

 

Previous Convictions:

None

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

4 years imprisonment; 9 year starting point - based on individual amounts of drug carried - not on joint value.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

30 months imprisonment

Yet another sad story of heroin addicts manipulated by sinister men involved in heroin smuggling.  Whilst having heard much to encourage sympathy for the position in which the accused found themselves and the effect on their families the Court had to remind itself that they had been prepared to bring a large quantity of heroin - a drug which had corrupted many lives - to Jersey.  Prison inevitable.  9 year starting point correct and guilty pleas inevitable.  Both accused deserved mitigation for residual youth.  After initial lies they had been co-operative.  Most importantly both had been prepared to name their suppliers and for this fact to be made known in open Court.  They were thereby acknowledged to have placed themselves at risk.  This was a very significant mitigating factor.  Public interest that those higher up the scale of this dirty business know that those they supply will get considerable benefit if they name suppliers.  Here there had been no prosecutions but a seizure of cash which would subsequently be confiscated.  In the circumstances a greater allowance than that given by the Crown should be made.  Both accused had behaved foolishly and had brought unhappiness to their families.  Each sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.  Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs (plus Orders for confiscation of small amounts of cash removed from them at time of arrest).

 

 

Joanne Margaret Kemp

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 2: diamorphine

 

Age:     30

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

See Harkin above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See Harkin above.

 

Previous Convictions:

(single offences of theft (1994) and fraud (2001).  Also evidence of several "pending" cases in Scotland revealing further offending.  Crown nevertheless proceeded on basis she had only two convictions.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

4 years imprisonment

See Harkin above.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

30 months imprisonment

See Harkin above.

 

 

 

 A.J. Belhomme, Esq, Crown Advocate

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for S.P. Harkin

Advocate J.C. Gollop for J.M. Kemp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is yet another sad story of addicts being manipulated by cynical men into committing a serious breach of the law by smuggling heroin into the Island. 

2.        We have heard much from counsel to encourage us to feel sympathy for these young people and for their families.  We must therefore remind ourselves that they were prepared to bring into Jersey, secreted inside their bodies, a large quantity of a drug which has corrupted and degraded the lives of too many other young people in this Island.  Trafficking in heroin is so serious that it must be severely punished.

3.        Each defendant brought in some 80 grams of heroin with a street value of at least £25,000.   On the application of the Rimmer [2001]JLR373 guide lines, the Crown Advocate has taken a starting point of 9 years imprisonment and we think that that is the correct starting point.

4.        In mitigation, Harkin pleaded guilty to the indictment, as did Kemp, although in the circumstances of this case such a plea was probably inevitable.

5.        Both have some residual mitigation for youth in that Harkin is 25 and Kemp is 30.  Harkin has no previous convictions and Kemp has minor previous convictions which are not relevant to sentencing in this case.

6.        The defendants were, after initial lies, co-operative with the Customs Officer but most importantly both defendants have been prepared to name their suppliers and have been prepared for this fact to be made known publicly, notwithstanding the possible risk to them as a result of that disclosure. 

7.        The Court has said on previous occasions that this is a very significant mitigating factor.  It is in the public interest that those higher up the scale in the dirty business of drug trafficking should know that those whom they supply will attract considerable benefit from naming them as the suppliers and allowing that fact to get into the public domain.  In this case the information has not led to further prosecutions but has led to the seizure of cash.

8.        We think that in the particular circumstances of this case, a greater allowance for this mitigating factor can be made than has been allowed by the Crown Advocate. 

9.        You have both behaved extremely foolishly and you have brought unhappiness upon your families who will also pay the penalty for your offences.  You have heard what the Court has said in relation to the particular mitigation for which you are entitled to credit.  We are taking that into account and each of you will be sentenced on the single count on the indictment to which you have pleaded guilty to 30 months' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Rimmer & Others -v- AG (2001)JLR373.