BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Bartley and Ors [2004] JRC 037 (25 February 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2004/2004_037.html Cite as: [2004] JRC 037, [2004] JRC 37 |
||
[New search] [Help]
[2004]JRC037
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
25th February 2004
|
Before: |
M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Quérée, Bullen, Georgelin, King and Le Cornu. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Paul Brian Bartley;
Mark Ormesher;
Paul McEvoy;
Anthony Spinola;
Matthew Stephen Rowles;
David Charles Bentley.
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendants were remanded by the Inferior Number on 15th January, 2004, following guilty pleas as follows:
Paul Brian Bartley
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug: Count 1: cannabis resin. |
|
1 count of: |
Being knowingly concerned in supplying a controlled drug to another contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 7: cannabis resin. |
[Count 1 was not proceeded with].
Age: 39
Details of Offence:
On Friday the 23rd May, 2003, approximately 38.5 kg of cannabis resin was imported into Jersey. Each of the defendants was involved in some way with the chain of events from its importation to its storage in Jersey and intended distribution.
The drug trafficking was discovered during an investigation involving covert surveillance. The investigation and surveillance revealed the following facts:
1. On 23/5/03, Ormesher and Bartley travelled to Jersey via Guernsey. They rented a room together in a hotel. During the afternoon they purchased two holdalls. The same day an unknown person later delivered 20 kg cannabis to Bentley's home.
2. On 24/5/03, McEvoy flew to Jersey. Ormesher met with Spinola and McEvoy. They were travelling in a Ford, Golf and Citroen respectively. The three left the meeting point in separate directions. Spinola was seen to meet Rowles and the two went to Rowles' mother's address. Later all the cars were stopped and searched. A total of £59,000 cash and 2 nine bars of cannabis resin were seized.
3. When arrested Rowles admitted that there was cannabis at his mother's property. Property searches uncovered 76 'nine' bars of cannabis resin at Rowles' mother's address in St Clements and 75 'nine' bars and 6 smaller pieces of cannabis resin at Bentley's address in St Helier.
4. The total wholesale value of the drugs seized was between £153,644 and £153,691. If sold on the street the value would be £221,278.
Concerned in the supply of the 19.081 kg discovered in Rowles' mother's home. Involvement was as the moneyman. Accepted responsibility for the £10,000 in is possession with the VW Golf when arrested and the £49,000 in the Ka motor vehicle to which he had the key. A total of £59,000.
Details of Mitigation:
McEvoy, Spinola, Rowles and Bentley entered their pleas before the Royal Court on the 10th October, 2003. Bartley pleaded guilty on 16th December, 2003, and Ormesher on the 19th December, 2003. McEvoy made full admissions in a voluntary statement, which he gave to police after his initial interview. Rowles made full admissions in interview and also gave a voluntary statement to police about his involvement. Bentley made admissions in interview in relation to his involvement with the cannabis.
No suggestion that his money. Speculation that close to supply. Common sense that for financial gain. Mitigation delay in charge. Father died. Family man. Post traumatic stress disorder.
Previous Convictions:
All the defendant's previous convictions were minor in comparison to these offences. Only Spinola had one drugs related offence, for possession of a personal amount of cannabis.
Conclusions:
|
Count 7: |
5 years' imprisonment: (starting point 9 years). £ 1 nominal confiscation order. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
All involved in the supply of a substantial amount of cannabis resin into the Island. Given the level and scale in this case, Court decided that the Campbell guidelines are relevant and of assistance in this case.
Conclusions granted.
Pleaded guilty. Moneyman, took responsibility for £59,000 although accept not personal money.
Crown's starting point is correct, 9 years.
Minor previous convictions.
Conduct in prison, the report of Dr. Sharkey references and letters.
Crown have given an adequate discount.
Mark Ormesher
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug: Count 1: cannabis resin. |
|
1 count of: |
Being knowingly concerned in supplying a controlled drug to another contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 8: cannabis resin. |
[Count 1 was not proceeded with].
Age: 35.
Details of Offence:
See Bartley, above.
Part of the joint enterprise concerned in the supply of cannabis discovered in Rowles' mother's house.
Accepted that he was part of the English end of the supply.
Details of Mitigation:
See Bartley, above.
Not master mind. Health difficulties. Money problems. Family man whose family would suffer.
Previous Convictions:
See Bartley, above.
Conclusions:
|
Count 8: |
5 years' imprisonment: (starting point 9 years). £217 confiscation order. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
See Bartley, above.
Conclusions granted.
Pleaded guilty. Motivated by financial gain. Close to the main source, although Court accepts that you were not the mastermind. Agree with the Crown's starting point of 9 years. Prentice very different case in which the Court was sentencing a minder; your involvement was greater.
Credit for guilty plea and no drugs related previous. Took into account health difficulties and letters from wife and daughter. Crown gave adequate discount.
Paul McEvoy
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug: Count 1: cannabis resin. |
|
1 count of: |
Being knowingly concerned in supplying a controlled drug to another contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 2: cannabis resin. |
[Count 1 was not proceeded with].
Age: 44.
Details of Offence:
See Bartley, above.
Concerned in the supply of the cannabis that was found in Rowles' mother's house; aware that an importation of cannabis resin took place on 25th May, 2003, but not aware of precise amount imported. Accepted involvement in supply of drugs in Citroen Picasso car; 2 nine bars found in Citroen's boot when searched.
Details of Mitigation:
See Bartley, above.
Prison Officer. Threats to family and himself if not involved. Tried to distance himself. Early guilty plea. Voluntary statement and willingness to give evidence. Has now lost his partner and is in the vulnerable persons unit. Offer of employment when released.
Previous Convictions:
See Bartley, above.
Conclusions:
|
Count 2: |
4½ years' imprisonment: (starting point 9 years). £1 nominal confiscation order. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
See Bartley, above.
|
Count 2: |
3 years' imprisonment (starting point 9 years). £1 nominal confiscation order. |
Pleaded guilty. Trusted and close to the main source of supply. Agree with the Crown's starting point of 9 years. Minor previous convictions. Took into account Social Enquiry Report and references.
Was warned of offence occurrence and told not to take part.
Gave a voluntary witness statement and willing to give evidence = substantial credit.
Anthony Spinola
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug: Count 1: cannabis resin. |
|
1 count of: |
Being knowingly concerned in supplying a controlled drug to another contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 3: cannabis resin. |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, with intent so supply contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: Count 4: cannabis resin. |
[Count 1 was not proceeded with].
Age: 26.
Details of Offence:
See Bartley, above.
Concerned in the supply of cannabis resin, which was found in Rowles possession. (76 'nine' bars). Spinola was to receive 5 kg with a further 5 kg being taken by Rowles for looking after the drugs. The remaining 9 kg were to be handed over to somebody else. Would have supplied to friends at more or less cost price.
Details of Mitigation:
See Bartley, above.
Cog in machine but not main source. Guilty plea. Youth. Relatively good character. Length of time in custody awaiting sentence. Co-operation. Co-operation with confiscation.
Previous Convictions:
See Bartley, above.
Conclusions:
|
Count 3: |
4½ years' imprisonment: (starting point 9 years). |
|
Count 4: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. £112,317 confiscation order. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
See Bartley above.
|
Count 3: |
4½ years' imprisonment. (9 years' starting point). |
|
Count 4: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. £112,317 confiscation order or 1 year's imprisonment in default of payment. |
Pleaded guilty on the basis that you were the point of contact in Jersey. Received the drugs on behalf of another. Paid over the money for the drugs. Trusted and had a considerable degree of involvement. Crown's starting point of 9 years correct. One previous conviction for possession of an insignificant amount of cannabis. Took into account the Social Enquiries Report, the Drugs and Alcohol Report and all other mitigation.
Matthew Stephen Rowles
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supplying a controlled drug: Count 1: cannabis resin. |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 5: cannabis resin. |
[Count 1 was not proceeded with].
Age: 26.
Details of Offence:
See Bartley, above.
Possession with intent to supply on the basis that he was looking after the 19.081 kg of cannabis resin found at his mother's address for Spinola.
Was to keep some of the 'nine' bars for himself as payment.
Details of Mitigation:
See Bartley above.
Voluntary statement to the police. Respected. Hard worker. Guilty plea.
Previous Convictions:
See Bartley, above.
Conclusions:
|
Count 5: |
4 years' imprisonment; (starting point 8 years); forfeiture of car and jet-ski trailer. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
See Bartley above.
|
Count 5: |
3 years' imprisonment; (starting point 8 years); forfeiture of car and jet-ski trailer. |
Accept contacted at the last minute and agreed, no reward with Spinola.
Minder of a substantial amount of cannabis resin.
Crown's starting point of 8 years correct.
Have no drug related previous convictions, good employment record.
Take into account Social Enquiry Report and Drugs and Alcohol Report.
Additional mitigation = provision of a voluntary statement and willingness to give evidence against Spinola.
David Charles Bentley
|
1 count of: |
Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug: Count 1: cannabis resin. |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 6: cannabis resin. |
[Count 1 was not proceeded with].
Age: 37.
Details of Offence:
See Bartley, above.
He was looking after the 60 'nine' bars of cannabis resin found at this address.
Details of Mitigation:
See Bartley above.
Guilty plea. Family man. Financial difficulties. Out of character. References. Only a minder.
Previous Convictions:
See Bartley, above.
Conclusions:
|
Count 6: |
4 years' imprisonment; (starting point 8 years); £1 nominal confiscation order.. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
See Bartley, above.
Conclusions granted.
Saw it as an easy way to make money. Trusted with a significant amount of cannabis resin. Trusted and close to the main source. Crown's starting point of 8 years correct. Minor previous convictions. Took into account remorse and references before the Court. No additional mitigation.
S.M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. Juste for P. Bartley.
Advocate D. Gilbert for M. Ormesher.
Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for P. McEvoy.
Advocate J.C. Gollop for A. Spinola.
Advocate M.H. Haines for M.S. Rowles.
Advocate C.M. Fogarty for D.C. Bentley.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. All these defendants were involved in the proposed supply of a substantial amount of cannabis resin in the Island. We should add that since the hearing this morning the Court has asked to see the witness statements of McEvoy and Rowles. These were matters referred to by the Crown. This was for the purposes of considering the degree of mitigation to be given to McEvoy and Rowles. We have ignored anything said in relation to the other defendants and it is not held against them.
2. The Crown has suggested that we should apply the Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie -v- Attorney General [1995] JLR136 guidelines in assessing the correct starting point, whereas certain defence counsel have referred to the cases of McDonough -v-A.G. (28th September 1994) Jersey Unreported and A.G. -v- Antunes & Ors. [2003] JRC074 which make it clear that these guidelines do not necessarily apply to offences of being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 and some of the defendants in this case are charged with that offence. The reason for this is that the circumstances of that offence can vary so much and in many cases the Campbell guidelines would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate.
3. Given the level and scale of the involvement of those of the defendants charged under Article 5(c) in this case, we think that on this occasion the Campbell guidelines are relevant and are of assistance and we propose to apply them.
4. Mark Ormesher, you were part of the English end of the supply. You flew across here to arrange the supply of some 19 kilos in Jersey. The Crown accepts, and so do we, that your involvement was limited to that amount. You were, however, together with Bartley at the heart of the arrangements whereby 19 kilos were transferred into the possession of Spinola. This was the cannabis which ended up in the house of Rowles' mother.
5. We are satisfied that this was undertaken for financial gain. We agree with the Crown that your involvement at the English end and the Jersey end as well as the amount involved puts you close to the main source of the drugs in this case, although we accept that you were not the organising mastermind of this operation. Having regard to the amount involved and to the nature and scale of your involvement we agree with the Crown that the correct starting point is one of 9 years. Your advocate referred to the case of Prentice - AG [2004]JCA008 where a starting point of 8 years was taken for being concerned in the supply of 23 kilos but that case was very different and the Court in Prentice made it clear that it was sentencing on the basis of the defendant being a minder for a comparatively short period. We regard your involvement as being greater.
6. In mitigation we take account of your guilty plea. It was not, however, entered from the outset, nevertheless, it was of value and we give you substantial credit for it. You have had a good record for the last 10 years, and you have no previous drug convictions. We have read carefully the contents of the Social Enquiry Report and we note the various background circumstances including the health difficulties of your wife and yourself. We have also read carefully the references and the letter from your wife and from your daughter, and we accept they will suffer as a result of your prison sentence, but that sadly is the consequence whenever a person commits an offence which requires a sentence of imprisonment and it will be equally applicable to the families of your co-accused.
7. We do not take any account, when considering your sentence, of the allegations of threats by McEvoy; that is something said by a co-accused; it is only relevant to him and we do not take any account of it when considering your sentence. All in all we think the Crown has made an adequate discount from the starting point and, therefore, the sentence on count 8, in your case, is 5 years' imprisonment.
8. Paul Bartley, you came over with Ormesher and, you too were concerned in the supply of the 19 kilos which were eventually found in Rowles' possession. Your involvement was as the money man. You accepted responsibility for a total of £59,000 found in your possession and in the various cars involved. We accept that this was not money that you were going to receive personally but nevertheless you were clearly trusted to handle such large sums of money. Having regard to the amount of the drug involved, namely 19 kilos and the nature and scale of your involvement we agree with the starting point suggested by the Crown of 9 years.
9. In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea. It too was late being only a few weeks before trial but Advocate Juste has given an explanation in your case, - of the late charging and the death of your father - and we certainly accept that the plea was of value and you are given a substantial discount for it. You have 3 minor previous convictions sometime ago and no previous drug conviction. We note your conduct in prison and commend it. We have considered carefully the matters in the Social Enquiry Report and in Dr Sharkey's Report concerning the effects of previous illnesses or injuries. We have also read carefully the references and particularly your letter and your partner's letter. Nevertheless, we think the Crown has made adequate discount in your case and the sentence, therefore, is also one of 5 years' imprisonment on the one count that you face.
10. Paul McEvoy, you too were concerned in the supply of the 19 kilos found in Rowles' possession. You were aware in advance of the importation and you came to Jersey on the Saturday in order to assist in the supply of the 19 kilos. You went with Ormesher and acted with him to deliver the 19 kilos to Spinola. Again having regard to the amount involved, and the nature and scale of your involvement, we agree with the starting point suggested by the Crown of 9 years'. In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea. In your case it was on indictment and therefore you are entitled to the full one third deduction. We note again that you have only minor previous convictions. In particular you became a prison officer, and as a result of this you have lost your career and your reputation. We have read carefully the references which have been provided on your behalf and also the contents of the Social Enquiry Report.
11. There is one important additional matter of mitigation in your case. Your counsel this morning, on your behalf stated that before the offence was committed you contacted the police in England and warned them of what was to occur. For some unaccountable reason they did not tell the Jersey police of this and it appears to be a complete co-incidence that as a result of information from some other source, the Jersey police were carrying out covert surveillance on the group. Nevertheless, it is not your fault that the English police did not proceed with matters as one would have hoped they would.
12. The police, however, did tell you not to continue and not to become involved but you did. You say that is because of threats from Ormesher. After your arrest you made a witness statement which indicated a willingness to give evidence against Ormesher and Bartley in the terms of that statement. It is the policy of this Court to give substantial credit where a defendant is willing to give open and public assistance either in trying to prevent crime or to bring offenders to justice. The Crown, so far as we are aware, did not know of the proposed open acknowledgement of this, this morning when moving conclusions. We think a much greater discount needs to be given to reflect that. Taking into account all the mitigation which is available on the papers we think that a total deduction of 6 years is appropriate. Therefore, on count 2 you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment.
13. Anthony Spinola. You were the point of contact in Jersey. You received the 19 kilos from Ormesher and McEvoy and transferred it on to Rowles. You paid the money over to the English contingent. We accept that you were doing this on behalf of another, but you expected to receive some 5 kilos as a reward which you would then sell on for profit to friends. The fact is that you were entrusted with a large sum of money and you were also entrusted with a large amount of cannabis, and this suggests a considerable degree of involvement.
14. Having regard to the amount and the nature and scale of your involvement we agree with the starting point of 9 years. In mitigation, there is your guilty plea. You pleaded guilty on indictment; again it was of value and you are entitled to a full discount. We take account, so far as it is material, of your youth - 26. We again note that you have no previous convictions save for one of possession of cannabis some 6 years ago. We have read the references in your case also the Social Enquiry Report and the Drug and Alcohol Report and all the other mitigation available on the papers before us.
15. Mr Gollop has emphasised your co-operation in that you offered a plea to an alternative charge and you have co-operated with the confiscation order by dealing with assets in England. We take all this into account, but we think the Crown has made sufficient allowance by making a deduction of 4½ years in your case. The sentence of the Court is on count 3, 4½ years; on count 4, 4 years' concurrent, 4½ years' imprisonment in all.
16. Matthew Stephen Rowles, you agreed to hide 19 kilos in a jet-ski in your mother's garage. We accept your version, namely that you were contacted very much at the last moment by Spinola and asked to look after this cannabis for a few hours. No reward was agreed, but you hoped that you might receive some cannabis from Spinola. Nevertheless, you were aware that you were being asked to act as minder for a substantial amount, and minders play an important part in the distribution of controlled drugs.
17. Having regard to the amount and the nature and scale of your involvement we think that the starting point of 8 years' selected by the Crown was correct. In mitigation we take account of your residual youth - 26; the fact that you too have only minor previous convictions. You have a good employment record. We have read the references and your letter and, of course, you too pleaded guilty on indictment for which you are entitled to a full discount. We have also read the Social Enquiry Report and the Drug and Alcohol Report in your case. There is one additional matter of mitigation; you admitted your part, and you not only did that but you also gave a witness statement which indicated a willingness to give evidence against Spinola. In our judgment the Crown has not allowed enough for that aspect.
18. We think the correct discount in your case is a total deduction of 5 years. Therefore, the sentence on count 5 is one of 3 years' imprisonment.
19. David Charles Bentley. You too agreed to look after approximately 19 kilos and you acted as a minder of that cannabis. You were approached and you saw an easy way of making some money. You were in financial difficulties at the time, because of problems with your business. The reward was to have been by way of some cannabis which you would then have sold. Having regard to your involvement and the amount we agree with the starting point of 8 years' in your case.
20. In mitigation you too pleaded guilty on indictment, so you get a full discount. You too have only minor previous convictions. You have indicated considerable remorse which we accept: you have let down your family and your close friends. We have read carefully the references and the many letters of support you have had, together with your letter and your partner's letter. There is, however, one feature that distinguishes you from Rowles: there is no additional mitigating factor in your case of a willingness to give evidence against others involved. We think the Crown has made sufficient discount by way of 4 years for all mitigating factors and, therefore the sentence of the Court is one of 4 years' imprisonment.
21. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
