Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A, and C

[2020]JRC268

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 December 2020

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache, Commissioner, and Jurats Crill, Ramsden and Ronge

The Attorney General

-v-

Cochrane Mark Howe

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 4^th December, 2020, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

9 counts of:

Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999 (Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

Age:  49. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 20^th September, 2019, Customs Officers intercepted a postal packet addressed to the defendant.  On opening the packet, Officers found 1.939 grams of Methylamphetamine (Count 7).  Whilst under investigation for this postal packet, the defendant was stopped at Jersey Airport by Customs Officers on his return from London Gatwick.  Officers searched the defendant's luggage and found 96 milligrams of Cocaine (Count 8), 796 milligrams of Methylamphetamine (Count 9) and four Zopiclone tablets (Count 10.)  The defendant was arrested and during interview he provided the PIN to his mobile telephone.

 

On examining the defendant's mobile telephone, it revealed evidence showing that he was responsible for the importation of the packet seized on 20^th September, 2019 (Count 7).

 

The data extracted also evidenced that the defendant had regularly been importing Class A and Class C drugs into Jersey for his own use, usually of 1 or 2 grams at a time, including 30 importations, between the period of January 2018 and the end of October 2019 (Counts 1 to 6).

It is not possible to be precise as to the exact amount of drugs that were received by the defendant in response to the orders that he placed.  If what he ordered was actually sent, then the total value of drugs imported (seized and not seized) is between £6,306 and £6,313.  It is estimated that the defendant imported approximately 54.456 grams of Methylamphetamine, 1.096 grams of cocaine, four Zopiclone tablets and 720 millilitres of GHB.

 

The defendant organised and paid for the importations which occurred over a period of 21 months.

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas, no previous convictions (only minor aged motoring matters) and therefore treated as a person of good character, letter of remorse, character references and had taken steps to address offending behaviour.

Previous Convictions:

Two aged and minor motoring offences. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	Starting point 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  5 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  5 years and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	Starting point 12 months' imprisonment.  8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	Starting point 18 months' imprisonment.  12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	Starting point 12 months' imprisonment.  8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	Starting point 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  5 years and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  4 years and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	Starting point 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment.  5 years and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	Starting point 12 months' imprisonment.  8 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  5 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  4 years imprisonment.
Count 2:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	Starting point 12 months' imprisonment.  6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	Starting point 18 months' imprisonment.  6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	Starting point 12 months' imprisonment.  3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	Starting point 9 years imprisonment.  4 years imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	Starting point 7 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	Starting point 9 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	Starting point 12 months' imprisonment.  3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  4 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        Mr Howe, the Court has been out for quite sometime considering this case as you will appreciate.  Over a period of some 21 months you have made a series of importations of Class A and Class C drugs.  They were partly done personally and partly done by postal importations and in each case the importations were for personal use.  There were some 30 separate orders made.  The total quantities of drugs involved 54.546 grams of methylamphetamine, between 1 and 2 grams of cocaine, an indeterminate quantity of diazepam tablets and of a small quantities of Class C drugs. 

2.        The most significant of these offences, by weight of drugs, are the methylamphetamine counts on the Indictment which are Counts 1, 7 and 9 and we are going to take those first.  Because of the quantity of drugs involved the Court is guided by the guidelines set down in the case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 and we see that the drugs in this case take us to a starting point of between 9 and 11 years' imprisonment.  We think that 9 years is the right starting point. 

3.        We have taken account of the mitigation which has been very admirably put forward by Advocate Preston on your behalf, and also the Social Enquiry Report and we have considered Dr Engelbrecht's report as well.  Just dealing with that mitigation in particular we think that you are entitled to have a full discount for the guilty plea.  The fact that you gave your PIN number on the mobile telephone that you have certainly enabled the police to carry out a fuller investigation of the offending and it is illustrative of the remorse which you have and which we have seen in the letter which you have sent to us, and of course we have regard also to the many references which you have put before the Court. 

4.        It is not a mechanical exercise to look at sentencing but if we take account of that one third discount for the guilty plea that takes one down to 6 years' imprisonment from the starting point of 9 and we have then looked at other items of mitigation which are particularly available.  The fact that you imported these drugs for personal use is a significant part of the mitigation and it is absolutely right that because you were not dealing in the drugs yourself by passing them on to other people that stands, as it were, to your credit.  The only other side of that equation which we take into account is that your behaviour by importing the drugs even for your own use, fuels the demand for these drugs in the marketplace generally.  But you are absolutely entitled, as Advocate Preston said, to significant credit for the fact that this was an importation for personal use. 

5.        We have also taken account of the fact that you have suffered personally from your own behaviour, but we balance that by thinking that, of course, many people who are in this position have suffered from their own behaviour as well.  You have turned your life around since being stopped by Customs in September last year, and I really do not want to under emphasise to you how much the Court takes that into account and gives you credit for it.  We respect you for taking control back of your own life, and that is an important feature of mitigation which we take into account. 

6.        Nonetheless, having had regard to all these things we cannot see that it is appropriate that the offending on Counts 1, 7 and 9 can lead us to a sentence of less than 4 years' imprisonment, and that is the sentence which we are therefore going to impose on those three counts.  In relation to the other counts the most significant is the cocaine importation and we think that, having regard to the nearly 2 grams of cocaine imported, the right sentence is 3 years' imprisonment on Counts 2 and 8 which would run concurrently, and in relation to Counts 3 and 5 we think 6 months' imprisonment is correct, and in relation to Counts 6 and 10 that 3 months' imprisonment is correct.  All these sentences will run concurrently making a total of 4 years' imprisonment.

7.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

8.        You are sentenced accordingly. 

9.        As I say, we have very much respect for your efforts to get past your addiction and actually we hope that the time that you will spend in custody will enable you to ensure that you have beaten that addiction in the future.

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373

Valler v AG [2002] JLR 383

AG v Gaish [2006] JRC 109

AG v Whitcombe [2014] JRC 173

AG v Duffy [2016] JRC 096