Jersey Judgment

AG v Barratt [2017] JRC 046 (20 March 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The defendant imported unprecedented quantities of Class A and Class B drugs, warranting substantial sentences. Mitigation and guilty plea were considered but did not merit a full-third reduction. A single sentencing uplift was applied for multiple drug types, resulting in concurrent sentences.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 14 years' imprisonment for Count 1 (MDMA tablets)
  • 12 years' imprisonment for Count 2 (MDMA crystals)
  • 6 years' imprisonment for Count 3 (cannabis resin)
  • all sentences to run concurrently
  • forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Unknown Defendant

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Amounts and remedies

  • MDMA Tablets Quantity: 18,013
  • MDMA Tablets Street Value (min): GBP 270,000
  • MDMA Tablets Street Value (max): GBP 450,000
  • MDMA Crystal Quantity (kg): 3.972
  • MDMA Crystal Street Value (min): GBP 318,000
  • MDMA Crystal Street Value (max): GBP 398,000
  • Cannabis Resin Quantity (kg): 37.018
  • Cannabis Resin Street Value (min): GBP 555,000
  • Cannabis Resin Street Value (max): GBP 740,000
  • Total Purchase Price (uk, Min): GBP 101,339
  • Total Purchase Price (uk, Max): GBP 132,839
  • Total Street Price (jersey, Min): GBP 1,143,930
  • Total Street Price (jersey, Max): GBP 1,579,765

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Mitigation advanced including attempt to turn life around, honouring family commitments, and guilty plea.
Respondent
Crown moved for substantial sentences reflecting the unprecedented quantities and value of drugs imported.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's prior statements

    Couriers are an important part of the supply chain and trusted with substantial quantities merit substantial sentences.

  2. 02

    Valler v AG [2000] JLR 383

    Sentencing uplift for importation of multiple drug types should be a single additional uplift applied to the most serious offence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The defendant imported unprecedented quantities of Class A and Class B drugs, warranting substantial sentences. Mitigation and guilty plea were considered but did not merit a full-third reduction. A single sentencing uplift was applied for multiple drug types, resulting in concurrent sentences.

Obiter and limits

  • Couriers play a critical role in the drug supply chain.
  • Mitigation factors such as attempts to turn life around and family commitments are noted but insufficient to alter the Crown's conclusions.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 14 years' imprisonment for Count 1 (MDMA tablets)
  • 12 years' imprisonment for Count 2 (MDMA crystals)
  • 6 years' imprisonment for Count 3 (cannabis resin)
  • all sentences to run concurrently
  • forfeiture and destruction of the drugs

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2017] JRC 046

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are to be sentenced for three counts of being knowingly concerned in the prohibition on the importation of Class A and Class B drugs. The drugs were hidden in the door panels of a car that you brought into Jersey on the 24 th September last year and they were found during a customs search. They were very substantial quantities. There were 18,013 tablets of MDMA with a Jersey street value of between, and these values are approximate, £270,000 and £450,000. 3.972 kilograms of MDMA crystal with a Jersey street value of between £318,000 and £398,000 and 37.018 kilograms of cannabis resin with a Jersey street value of between £555,000 and £740,000. The total purchase price in the United Kingdom would be between £101,339 and £132,839 and the total street price in Jersey between £1,143,930 and £1,579 765.

2. These are very substantial, if not unprecedented quantities, and indeed whilst we accept that you were a courier, as the Court has often said, couriers are an important part of the supply chain and you were a courier who would be trusted with this quantity and value of drugs. The damage that would have been done and the misery caused to the people of Jersey would have been very substantial indeed had this not been foiled.

3. You have no previous convictions for drugs trafficking although you are not of good character. We note of course your guilty plea and although the evidence against you was strong we make the appropriate allowance to reflect that plea but we do not think the guilty plea in this case merits a full-third reduction.

4. We also note the other mitigation advanced ably by your counsel on your behalf. You have clearly attempted to an extent to turn your life around. You have honoured and met family commitments and these have been reflected, we think, in the gap that we can see in your offending. However, we do not think that those factors are sufficient to cause us to think that the conclusions moved for by the Crown are other than correct. We think they are correct, although for reasons that are slightly different than those advanced by the Crown.

5. With regard to Count 1, the tablets, we think that the correct starting point is that of 18 years' imprisonment in considering those drugs alone. For Count 2, the MDMA crystals, again a starting point of 18 years' imprisonment for those drugs alone and for Count 3, the cannabis resin a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment for that drug alone. But as you have imported substantial quantities of more than one type of drug we approach sentencing on the basis of Valler v AG [2000] JLR 383 and consider an increase in the starting point for the most serious offence. In our view the correct uplift in this case is one of 3 years. We think that the correct approach is not to have sequential additions depending upon the numbers of different kinds of drugs but to identify a single additional uplift which seems to us to be appropriate, and we apply that uplift to the starting point allowing of course for totality. The starting point we apply it to is with regard to the most serious offence that of Count 1.

6. The sentences accordingly are as follows: taking all the mitigation that we have identified into account, including the guilty plea, for which we allow an appropriate discount. Count 1, from a starting point of 21 years' imprisonment: 14 years imprisonment. Count 2, from a starting point of 18 years' imprisonment: 12 years' imprisonment. Count 3, from a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment: 6 years' imprisonment. All sentences to run concurrently, making a total of 14 years' imprisonment.

7. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Valler v AG [2007] JLR 383. Bonnar v AG [2001] JLR 626 . Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 . Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 . Vipond v AG [2004] JLR Note 24 . Vipond v AG [2004] JCA 086 . AG v Vipond [2004] JRC 029 . AG v Andrade and Ors [2006] JRC 029 . AG v Logan [2015] JLR 113. AG v Gautier and Halais [2015] JRC 262A . AG v Wootton [2003] JRC 034 . Page Last Updated: 06 Dec 2017 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Valler v AG [2000] JLR 383

Case cited

Bonnar v AG [2001] JLR 626

Case cited

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373

Case cited

Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136

Case cited

Vipond v AG [2004] JLR Note 24

Case cited

Vipond v AG [2004] JCA 086

Case cited

AG v Vipond [2004] JRC 029

Case cited

AG v Andrade and Ors [2006] JRC 029

Case cited

AG v Logan [2015] JLR 113

Case cited

AG v Gautier and Halais [2015] JRC 262A

Case cited

AG v Wootton [2003] JRC 034

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.