Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - Class A - importation - converting the proceeds of criminal property - drugs - Class B - possession and supply

[2020]JRC042

Royal Court

(Samedi)

9 March 2020

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, O.B.E, Commissioner, and Jurats Crill, Pitman, Austin-Vautier and Hughes.

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Anthony Hall

Zoe Louise Myers

Kaine Richard Jordan Whittingham

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 10^th January, 2020, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Michael Anthony Hall

1 count of:	Conspiracy to fraudulently evade 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)
1 count of:	Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement that facilitates, by any means, the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999 (Count 2)

Age:  33. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The defendants conspired to import Class A drugs from the UK to Jersey, and export the proceeds back to the UK.  Hall was the UK-based organiser; Myers the courier and Whittingham the Jersey-based distributor of the drugs. 

The charges cover two importations of MDMA into Jersey by Myers on 5^th September and 11^th October, 2018 (Count 1).  On each occasion, Hall gave Myers the MDMA in the UK which she concealed internally.  On arrival in Jersey she passed it to Whittingham, and received cash from him which she took back to Hall (Counts 2 to 4).  On 5^th September, 2018, the importation of drugs and export of cash was successful; on 11^th October, 2018, Myers was stopped by Customs Officers when she arrived at Jersey Airport, and found to be carrying 112 grams of 76% by weight MDMA.  The first importation was of a similar amount, making a total weight of 224 grams.

On arrest Whittingham was found in possession of 7 grams cannabis (Count 6) and his phone revealed evidence of supplying 10 grams cannabis (Count 5).

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, previous convictions but none for drugs, employment record, support of parents, letter of remorse, moderate risk of reoffending

Previous Convictions:

Convictions for public order and assault, but nothing drug related.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 8 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	8 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 8 years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Zoe Louise Myers

1 count of:	Conspiracy to fraudulently evade 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)
1 count of:	Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement that facilitates, by any means, the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999 (Count 3)

Age:  35. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Hall above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, named co-conspirators in interview and happy for this to be mentioned in open court, willing to be a witness at any trial, good character, employment record, history of significant personal trauma, diagnosis of PTSD as a result, good references and letter of remorse, moderate risk of reoffending.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	6 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 6 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Kaine Richard Jordan Whittingham

1 count of:	Conspiracy to fraudulently evade 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)
1 count of:	Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement that facilitates, by any means, the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999 (Count 4)
1 count of:	Being knowingly concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 5).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 6).

Age:  22. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

See Hall above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea albeit late in the day, good character, employment record, aged 17-21 when cannabis offences committed, 20 when the MDMA offence began so credit for youth, good references and letter of remorse, moderate risk of reoffending, support of family and girlfriend. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	5 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 4:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

R. C. P. Pedley Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant Hall.

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

Advocate C. B. Austin for the Defendant Whittingham

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The defendants who are aged 32, 35 and 22 respectively are to be sentenced firstly for conspiring to import MDMA powder, a Class A drug, into Jersey on two occasions between August and October 2018 and secondly, for money laundering offences relating to the proceeds of those importations.  The first importation was successful, but the second was interrupted when the defendant Myers was stopped at the airport. 

2.        The defendant Whittingham is also to be sentenced for the supply of approximately 10 grams of cannabis between September 2015 when he was 17 and April 2019, and for possession of a small quantity of cannabis. 

3.        The defendants' role in the importation is not in dispute.  Hall, who lives in England, was the organiser, Myers was the courier, the drugs were carried internally and Whittingham was the local distributor. 

4.        The total weight of the MDMA was approximately 225 grams with a street value in the region of £22,400.  The guidelines in Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 suggest a starting point for trafficking involving 100 to 250 grams is between 10 and 13 years.  On a strictly numerical basis, the starting point for this for quantity would therefore be 12 years and 8 months.

5.        The Court in AG v Rimmer held that if the degree of purity is very high, at or above 75%, it may be appropriate to increase the starting point.  In this case the MDMA seized in the second importation had a purity of 76%. 

6.        The money laundering offences, attracting a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, and the factors to be taken into account are summarised in the judgment of the Superior Number in the case of AG v Goodwin [2016] (2) JLR 220.  In AG v Goodwin the defendant had laundered £596,000 and the Court adopted a starting point of 11 to 12 years, given that defendant's heavy involvement in drug trafficking.  Because in this case the money laundered related to the drugs imported, the Crown had not considered a Valler uplift (Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383), consistent with the approach of the Court in the AG v Safapour [2020] JRC 003 and regard it as an aggravating feature.  The Crown has taken the same approach in relation to Whittingham's cannabis supply. 

7.        With Hall being the organiser, packing and delivering the drugs to Myers and receiving the money she brought back, the Crown seek the following starting points in relation to the importations; defendant Hall 13 years, defendant Myers 11 years, and defendant Whittingham 11 years.

8.        The amount of cannabis supplied by Whittingham, 10 grams, falls below the guidelines in Campbell and ors v AG [1995] JLR 136 and the Crown has taken a starting point of 3 months for that offence.

9.        Counsel for the defendants' have submitted these starting points are too high, pointing to the overlap in the Rimmer Guidelines and their respective client's involvement in the drugs trade, but we disagree.  We are dealing here with the importation of a Class A drug of high purity into the island, and aree that 13 years is appropriate for the defendant Hall, who was the English based organiser, and closer therefore to the source of the drugs.

10.      In our view 11 years is also appropriate for Myers' role in bringing those drugs into Jersey and Whittingham's role in distributing those drugs here.  The damage done to society by such importations is demonstrated by the recent death of a 19 year old from consuming Class A drugs. 

11.      Myers and Whittingham are treated as being of previous good character.  Hall has previous convictions but none are drug related.  All three are assessed at a moderate or medium risk of re-conviction and all three have pleaded guilty, although in the case of Whittingham his plea was entered not long before a trial, which was in course of preparation.

12.      Turning to mitigation and taking first the defendant Hall, he has as we have said pleaded guilty, he has a good employment record and support from his parents and partner.  He has written a good letter to us and we accept that his remorse is genuine. 

13.      The defendant Myers also pleaded guilty, and is a person of good character and also had a good employment record.  As explained in the Social Enquiry Report she did suffer traumatic and harrowing events in her childhood, which we accept impacted her in later life and in her becoming involved in these importations.  She has been assessed by the psychologist as suffering from PTSD. We have considered the good references provided for her, and her letter of remorse which we also accept is genuine.

14.      A further issue arises in relation to the mitigation available to the defendant Myers.  When she was first interviewed by the police having been stopped at the airport, she named the defendant Hall as her supplier and the defendant Whittingham as a recipient of the drugs.  She then instructed her advocate that she was prepared for this co-operation to be mentioned in open court as it has been.  Furthermore, she confirmed that she was prepared to give evidence against both Hall and Whittingham.  The policy of the Court has always been to encourage and reward such co-operation.

15.      Turning finally, to the defendant Whittingham, he has the benefit of his late plea, but is of good character.  He was aged between 17 and 21 when involved with the supply of cannabis and around 20 when involved with the importation of this MDMA.  Whilst the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 do not apply, he is entitled to a discount for his youth.  He was at the time in employment and his prospects were good.  He also has good references and has written a letter to us, and again we accept that his remorse is genuine.  We also note the presence of his family, his girlfriend from Guernsey, and friends in Court which speaks well of him. 

16.      In conclusion, having taken into account the mitigation in relation to what are very serious offences we accept the conclusions of the Crown in relation to the defendant Hall.  The message needs to go out, that those who bring in Class A drugs into the island will always face a lengthy term of imprisonment. 

17.      As for the defendant Myers we are going to reduce her sentence somewhat, in order to reflect her co-operation with the police and the policy of the Court to encourage others to do the same. 

18.      Finally, in relation to the defendant Whittingham we are going to reduce his sentence somewhat to reflect his youth and the fact that he was only 20 when these offences were committed.

19.      Mr Hall, on Count 1, the conspiracy to import the MDMA, you are sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.  On Count 2, the money laundering, you are sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, all concurrent making a total of 8 years imprisonment. 

20.      Ms Myers on Count 1, the conspiracy to import the MDMA, you are sentenced to 5 years.  On Count 3, the money laundering, you are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, all concurrent making a total of 5 years imprisonment.

21.      Mr Whittingham on Count 1, the conspiracy to import the MDMA you are sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment.  On Count 4, money laundering, 12 months' imprisonment.  On Count 5, the supply of cannabis, 2 months' imprisonment.  On Count 6, the possession of cannabis, one week of imprisonment, all concurrent making a total of 4½ years imprisonment.  .

22.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ceased in this case.

23.      We have already adjourned the two confiscation applications in respect of the defendants Hall and Whittingham.

24.      We order that the psychological report in relation to the defendant Myers be disclosed to the prison service.

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 

AG v Goodwin [2016] (2) JLR 220. 

Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383. 

AG v Safapour [2020] JRC 003. 

Campbell and ors v AG [1995] JLR 136. 

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014