AG v Alime, Clark and Fouracres (Royal Court : Sentencing (Criminal) : Binnington) [2026] JRC 013 (13 January 2026)

judgment the commissioner: 1. On 11 December 2025, Adil Alime, Anthony Francis Clark, and Darren Paul Fouracres were sentenced for their respective roles in relation to the importation of a kilogram of cocaine into the island in June 2022 and the subsequent possession, and then attempted removal, of criminal property from the Island.

2. The following are the reasons for the sentences imposed.

3. Alime is 30 years old, Clark is 46 years old, and Fouracres is 47 years old. Count 1 - Importation of cocaine 4. This count related to Alime and Fouracres and concerned a package containing 1 kilogram of 75% purity cocaine which was found by customs officers when they searched a vehicle being driven off the ferry from Poole on 1 June 2022 by 20-year old Elijah Eric Silbourne.

5. Silbourne was subsequently charged with the importation of cocaine and pleaded guilty.

6. The wholesale value of the cocaine would have been between £84,000 to £105,000 and the street value, absent any adulteration, between £120,000 to £220,000. However, assuming adulteration by two-thirds or three-quarters, the potential wholesale value was estimated to have been £252,000 to £420,000 and the street value £360,000 to £880,000.

7. Alime was instrumental in relation to the importation. He provided the vehicle for Silbourne to travel in and kept in regular contact with him during his travel on the day. It was apparent from the content of text messages that officers subsequently downloaded from his phone that he was concerned about Silbourne being stopped by officers, stating, "What", "have they got dogs?" and "Call me ASAP". He also attempted to call Silbourne , who by then had been detained, six times. Additionally, he funded Silbourne's travel on that occasion and on a previous attempt on 28 May 2022.

8. Fouracres was in phone contact with Alime on the day of Silbourne's initial attempt to travel on 28 May 2022, for more than an hour in total, and more generally in the lead up to the May attempt. He was in possession of criminal property, namely significant sums of cash, £22,610 of which he transferred to Alime, and a further £17,000 which he later attempted to remove from the Island. The Court noted that the Crown considered that it was appropriate to treat Alime as having played a greater role in the importation of this cocaine. Count 2 - Arrangement to facilitate the acquisition, use or possession of criminal property 9. Count 2 concerned all three Defendants and related to payments of cash totalling £29,720 made by Clark into his account, onward payments by him to Fouracres and subsequent transfers by Fouracres to Alime.

10. The Crown referred the Court to the Superior Number decision in AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 , in which the Court set out a number of principles to be applied when determining sentence in money laundering cases.

11. Those principles were as follows: (i) There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the sentence for the laundering offence and the predicate offence. Where, however, the predicate offence can be identified, some regard will be had to the appropriate sentence for that offence when considering the appropriate sentence for the laundering offence. (ii) The criminality in laundering is the assistance, support and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct. (iii) Regard should be had to the extent of the launderer's knowledge of the predicate offence. (iv) The amount of money laundered is a relevant factor. (v) No distinction is to be drawn as a matter of law between the laundering of one's own proceeds of crime and the proceeds of crime committed by third parties. (vi) The duration, sophistication and scale of money laundering are also relevant considerations.

12. The Crown accepted that there was no direct evidence as to the predicate offence in this case but suggested that it was overwhelmingly likely that the money resulted from drug trafficking considering the involvement of Alime and Fouracres in the importation, the subject of Count 1.

13. The Crown submitted, and the Court accepts, that the transfer of money between accounts and the subsequent attempt to remove cash from the island are integral parts of the illicit drug-dealing trade.

14. The extent of the launderers' knowledge differed as between Alime and Fouracres on the one hand and Clark on the other given the former's pleas to the knowingly concerned charge and Clark's basis of plea, which was that he transferred the funds at the request of Fouracres and that whilst he suspected that the funds were from some kind of illegal activity, he did not know the details of the offending.

15. The Crown suggested that Alime appeared to be the ultimate beneficiary of the transfers and pointed out that there were credits of £516,774 across three of his bank accounts between November 2021 and November 2022, despite his salary for working in the family-run post office being approximately £1,620 per month.

16. The Crown did however accept that the way that the cash was transferred during the period of seven months and the way that an attempt was made to remove it from the island were relatively unsophisticated. Little was done by any of the defendants to conceal what they were doing.

17. The Crown Advocate referred the Court to a number of comparative cases but acknowledged that the amount of money laundered is not determinative of the sentence. Rather, the amount laundered is just one of a number of factors to be taken into account. Count 3 (attempted removal of criminal property) 18. Count 3 concerned Clark and Fouracres and related to quantities of cash found when they were stopped and searched by customs officers before they could board a flight at Jersey airport on 20 December 2022.

19. A total of £17,960 in cash was seized, comprising £16,020 found in a suitcase, £980 on Fouracres and £960 on Clark. They were both cautioned and arrested on suspicion of attempting to remove criminal property from the Island.

20. Clark advanced a basis of plea that £5,000 of the total of £17,960 was legitimate money from their employer, comprising a £3,000 Christmas bonus for him and a £2,000 Christmas bonus for Fouracres . Fouracres advanced no such basis in respect of the monies. Whilst this aspect of the basis of plea was not accepted by the Crown, it was accepted and agreed by the Court that this would not make a material difference to sentence and the Defendants therefore fell to be sentenced in respect of attempting to remove £12,960 in criminal property. Count 4 (possession of cannabis) 21. This count related to Fouracres only and concerned two grams of cannabis resin found in a bedside drawer during a search of Clark's home address following his arrest at Jersey airport on 20 December 2022. Sentencing guidelines 22. In relation to Count 1, the Crown referred the Court to Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373 , in which the Court of Appeal laid down sentencing guidelines for cases concerning the trafficking of Class A controlled drugs in powder form, by reference to the weight of drugs involved, the accused's role and, to a lesser extent, the value. The guidelines indicated a starting point of 14 years' imprisonment and upwards for a quantity over 400 grams.

23. In the instant case, Alime and Fouracres were knowingly concerned in the importation of a kilogram of 75% purity cocaine.

24. The Crown considered, as we have already noted, that it was appropriate to treat Alime as having played a greater role in the importation of this cocaine. Taking into consideration, in particular, the quantity of the cocaine, its purity and the Defendants' role and involvement, the Crown adopted a starting point of 17 years' and 6 months' imprisonment for Alime and 17 years for Fouracres , noting that the courier Silbourne had a starting point of 16 years' imprisonment. The Crown explained that the proposed starting figures took into account the proceeds of crime offending which further reflected their greater role in the offending.

25. We note that in Rimmer , the Court of Appeal considered that in cases where the degree of purity is high, at about 75% or greater, then it may be appropriate to increase the starting point to reflect that the consignment is likely to be adulterated, or if not adulterated, that it would do greater harm t the consumer.

26. In the instant case, the kilogram of cocaine imported had a purity of 75% which is high purity cocaine which could be adulterated to between two to four times its original purity and still represent a sellable product. The Court, in the sentencing of the courier Silbourne , took into account the high purity and noted that "Given the expert evidence, we are satisfied to the criminal standard that this consignment of cocaine would have been adulterated for sale on the street" . The Crown therefore took this high purity into consideration when reaching the starting point in the instant case.

27. In relation to Counts 2 and 3, the Crown, having referred to the principles set out in Attorney General v Goodwin (supra) noted that the Court has said previously, for example in Attorney General v Bhojwani [2010] JRC 116 , that - "the circumstances of money laundering offences can differ so widely that it would be difficult for guidelines to be provided".

28. The Crown referred to a number of cases to provide examples of the Court's approach to determine the appropriate sentencing starting point.

29. In relation to Count 4, the Crown noted that simple possession of a Class B drug carries a maximum sentence of 5 years' imprisonment and a fine. Fouracres was in possession of two grams of cannabis resin. The Magistrate's Court Guidelines indicated a sentence of a fine ranging from £300 to £2,500 for up to 50 grams of cannabis. In light of the other more serious offences, no separate penalty was sought. Crown's conclusions 30. The Crown moved for the following sentences, all to run concurrently to each other - Alime Count 1 - (Importation of cocaine) 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment (17 years and 6 months' starting point) Count 2 - (use, possession, and control of criminal property) 3 years' imprisonment Total 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Clark Count 2 - (use, possession and control of criminal property) 2 years 6 months' imprisonment Count 3 - (Attempting to remove criminal property) 2 years 6 months' imprisonment Total 2 years 6 months' imprisonment Fouracres Count 1 - (Importation of cocaine) 9 years' imprisonment (17 years' starting point) Count 2 - (use, possession and control of criminal property) 3 years' imprisonment Count 3 - (Attempting to remove criminal property) 3 years' imprisonment Count 4 - (possession of cannabis resin) No separate penalty Total 9 years' imprisonment The Pre-Sentence Report ("PSR") 31. The PSR noted that Alime had a single previous conviction, from 2018, for the production of cannabis, for which he received a community order.

32. Alime was assessed as being at moderate risk of reconviction. Protective factors identified included his limited criminal record, a stable home environment with the support of his family and a good employment record. However, risk factors identified included his association with those involved with drugs, his financial debts and his attitude towards drugs.

33. Clark had five previous convictions, none of which were for drug related offending. His most recent conviction was from 2017 and related to a failure to comply with a community order. Clark was assessed as being at moderate risk of reconviction. Protective factors identified included his limited criminal record, supportive family and good employment record. His risk factors identified included his poor consequential thinking, alcohol misuse and acquaintances who are involved in criminal activity.

34. Fouracres had no previous convictions. He received a caution in 2010 for producing cannabis. Fouracres was assessed as being at moderate risk of reconviction. Whilst he had no previous convictions and had a consistent employment history, the probation officer noted that the assessment of moderate risk was based on his prolonged and entrenched use of alcohol and drugs and his minimisation and normalisation of this behaviour, which may impair his ability to recognise the associated risks. Mitigation Alime 35. Alime had the benefit of guilty pleas. Whilst he was not of good character, he only had one previous conviction for the production of cannabis from 2018.

36. Advocate Nicholls, on behalf of Alime, quite properly did not seek to minimise his client's role in the importation or his receipt of criminal property. He did however point out that the significant amounts that had passed across his three accounts, to which the Crown referred, had no relevance to his sentencing in respect of the present offences, the sentencing being in respect of the sum of £22,610.

37. Advocate Nicholls further noted that of the three accused, Alime was the youngest by a considerable margin and his record indicated that he was not a sophisticated career criminal. He suggested that the importation that Alime arranged was the epitome of naivety and stupidity: that 19-year-old Silbourne was sent to Jersey with a kilo of cocaine concealed under the boot lining of a new dark-coloured Range Rover which was bound to trigger suspicion. He submitted that the transfers of cash were similarly unsophisticated.

38. Advocate Nicholls submitted that a sentence of no more than 7 years' imprisonment would be appropriate.

39. In addition to a letter expressing remorse, Alime submitted a number of character references, which spoke of his work ethic and contributions to the community and his commitment to the care of an autistic child. Clark 40. Clark had the benefit of guilty pleas and had no relevant previous convictions. He was cooperative with police, providing the passcode to his phone and signing a bank disclosure authority.

41. In addition to a letter of remorse, Clark provided a number of positive character references which referred to him being generous, kind-hearted and a "soft touch" , possibly to the extent he was easy to exploit. He indicated to the probation officer that his prime motivation in relation to the offences was to help a friend, rather than financial gain.

42. On Clark's behalf Advocate Binnie pointed out the very limited role that her client had when compared to his co-defendants.

43. She also referred to the very considerable delay in her client being charged and the fact that he had spent the equivalent of a 10 ½ month sentence on remand. She also drew the Court's attention to a serious health issue that Clark had, for which treatment was not readily available in prison. Fouracres 44. Fouracres had the benefit of guilty pleas and had no previous convictions. He was cooperative with the police, providing the passcode to his phone and signing a bank disclosure authority. He had also submitted a letter of remorse and a number of character references, which spoke highly of his work ethic and care for his family.

45. Advocate Dale, on behalf of Fouracres , urged the Court to recognise what she suggested was the substantially lesser role that her client played as compared with that of Alime. She suggested that his role was closer to that of Clark than to Alime, the only real difference between them being their degree of knowledge of the illicit activity.

46. Advocate Dale submitted that there was no evidence that Fouracres benefitted financially from his participation nor was there evidence of a "flash lifestyle".

47. She echoed Advocate Binnie's comments on the significant and unexplained delay in bringing the matter to court. Sentence 48. Given Alime's pivotal role in relation to the importation, the quantity and purity of the drugs and the amount of money laundered, we regarded the sentences moved for by the Crown in respect of him to be entirely appropriate.

49. The Court regarded Clark as naïve but he nevertheless closed his eyes to what should have been obvious to him. We did however recognise that he played a far lesser role than his co-defendants. We took into account his serious medical condition and the impact that the considerable delay in bringing the matter to court had upon him and, as an act of mercy, we were prepared to impose a sentence that would enable his release within a relatively short period of time.

50. In relation to Fouracres , the Court regarded him as being more closely connected to the importation than was suggested by his counsel, as evidenced by his guilty plea to Count 1, but regarded the Crown's starting point of 17 years as giving insufficient recognition to his lesser role as compared with Alime and accordingly reduced it to 14 years.

51. We imposed the following sentences, in the case of each defendant all to run concurrently to each other - Alime Count 1 - (Importation of cocaine) 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment (17 years and 6 months' starting point) Count 2 - (use, possession, and control of criminal property) 3 years' imprisonment Total 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment Clark Count 2 - (use, possession and control of criminal property) 15 months' imprisonment Count 3 - (Attempting to remove criminal property) 15 months' imprisonment Total - 15 months' imprisonment Fouracres Count 1 - (Importation of cocaine) 7 years' imprisonment (14 years' starting point) Count 2 - (use, possession and control of criminal property) 3 years' imprisonment Count 3 - (Attempting to remove criminal property) 3 years' imprisonment Count 4 - (possession of cannabis resin) No separate penalty Total 7 years' imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction 52. We ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the mobile phones and drugs seized in this case under Article 29 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Confiscation 53. We noted that the Crown was not currently in a position to make an application for a confiscation order in respect of any of the defendants and therefore the matter of confiscation was postponed in accordance with Article 6 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 to a date to be fixed. Authorities AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 . Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373 . Attorney General v Bhojwani [2010] JRC 116 . Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. Page Last Updated: 23 Jan 2026 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII