AG v Begley (Royal Court : Sentencing (Criminal) : Binnington) [2026] JRC 016 (14 January 2026)

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. On 11 December 2025, we sentenced Kieron Michael Begley ("the Defendant") to a total of 11 years' imprisonment in respect of an indictment containing five counts, namely being concerned in the supply of cocaine and MDMA, possession with intent to supply cocaine and MDMA and possession of cocaine.

2. The Defendant, who was 33 years' old, entered guilty pleas on 11 August 2025 on his first appearance. The charges emanated from a search of his home address on 7 August 2025 in which over 600 grams of cocaine and 3,000 MDMA tablets were found.

3. On arrival at the Defendant's house, police officers asked the Defendant if there were any drugs in the property and he stated that there were drugs inside an ottoman in the lounge. The officers opened the ottoman and found a Boots shopping bag, within which was a plastic bag containing white chalky powder which was subsequently confirmed by the Official Analyst to be cocaine weighing 6.82 grams with 76% purity. Sandwich bags with residue, subsequently confirmed to contain traces of cocaine, and digital scales with white granular power containing traces of cocaine, were also found inside.

4. Officers continued searching the lounge. They found a green notebook under the TV which had a white chalky powder on it, confirmed by the Official Analyst to be cocaine weighing 0.26 grams, together with a rolled up £1 note. The cocaine was on the side in the lounge where the Defendant's child would have had access. Three mobile devices were seized by officers. Within one of the phone cases of these devices was a note which appeared to be a deal list. The deal list suggested that £31,970 was owed to the Defendant. Other notebooks were also seized, which contained various figures.

5. On a further search of the ottoman a boxing glove was found, within which there were a large number of blue tablets subsequently confirmed to be 315 half-scored MDMA tablets.

6. The attic at the property was also searched and the officers found two green coloured bags in a Christmas tree box. One of the bags contained a white brick of material, subsequently confirmed as being 662.29 grams of cocaine of 80% purity. The other bag was also searched and found to contain, as subsequently confirmed, 2,874 MDMA tablets.

7. When data from the Defendant's mobile phones was subsequently downloaded, recent messages appearing to relate to the supply of cocaine or MDMA were identified.

8. Following signature of a bank disclosure form, the Defendant's Revolut banking transactions within an eight-month period during 2025 (beginning in January 2025) showed third party payments exceeding £15,500, which suggested that the Defendant had been supplying drugs since at least January 2025.

9. The combined value of the drugs seized was estimated by the police drugs expert, DC Fowler, as being between £164,570 and £253,970. The Crown noted that the purity of the cocaine seized was high which the expert suggested meant that it was likely that it would have been sold at the higher end of the price range.

10. When the Defendant was interviewed under caution on 7 August 2025, he answered no comment to all material questions. Guidelines 11. The Crown Advocate referred us to the decisions in Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373 and Bonnar & Noon v Attorney General [2001] JLR 626 , as the leading authorities in which the Court of Appeal had laid down sentencing guidelines to be applied in cases concerning the trafficking of Class A controlled drugs in powder and tablet form, by reference to the quantity of drugs involved, the accused's role, and to a lesser extent, the value of the drugs.

12. The Crown Advocate did however point out that the Court has held that it will not always be appropriate to apply the guidelines in respect of the offence of being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug contrary to Article 5(c) Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 , because the offence could cover a wide spectrum of conduct, including conduct which may be peripheral to and less serious than outright supplying (see McDonough v Attorney General [1994] JCA 193 , and Attorney General v Antunes & Ors [2003] JRC 072 ).

13. However, in Attorney General v Taylor [2019] JRC 027 , the Court held that this was subject to the caveat that sentencing guidelines apply where the offender engaged in activities which would also have amounted to an offence under Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (possession with intent to supply) stating - "Had Article 8(2) been charged, the Rimmer guidelines would have applied. The Article 5 and Article 8(2) offences carry the same maximum sentence where the same classification of drugs is involved. The gravamen of the two offences is also the same. It would be illogical to take the same activity and apply the Rimmer guidelines if that activity is charged under Article 8(2) but not under Article 5(c). Obviously, if "being concerned" related to a different participation in the overall activity of the drugs being supplied, that would raise the considerations which were the subject of the decisions in Antunes and in McDonough . Accordingly, where an Article 5 offence is charged, we rule that the Rimmer , Bonnar and Campbell guidelines apply if the offence involved the defendant engaging in activities which would also have amounted to an offence under Article 8(2). Those guidelines may well of course apply to the other offences under Article 5 too, depending on what the defendant's involvement or activity actually was." 14. In the present case, the

Defendant was in possession of the cocaine and MDMA with an intent to supply the same. Additionally, the Defendant was directly involved in the supplying of controlled drugs. The Crown therefore submitted that the guidelines should apply, and had been applied, in formulating the Crown's conclusions. Starting points for Counts 1 and 2 - being concerned in the supply of cocaine (1) and MDMA (2) 15. In relation to Counts 1 and 2, the Crown had not been able to quantify exactly how much cocaine and MDMA the Defendant was concerned in supplying but suggested that it appeared that he was involved in the supply of cocaine and MDMA from January 2025 and that the deal list, totalling over £30,000, was indicative of substantial drug dealing.

16. The Crown had taken a starting point of 7 years' imprisonment for each of Counts 1 and 2. Starting points for Counts 3 and 4 - possession with intent to supply cocaine (3) and MDMA (4) 17. In relation to Count 3, the Defendant was in possession with intent to supply to others, of 662.29 grams of cocaine found within the Christmas tree box in the attic, valued at between £99,300 and £165,500 and in possession of 6.82 grams of cocaine found alongside the MDMA in the ottoman, valued at between £1,050 and £1,750. The cocaine had a total valuation of between £100,380 and £167,250 and weighed 669.11 grams.

18. In his expert report, DC Fowler concluded that the cocaine found in the attic should be valued at the higher price of £165,500 due to the quality of the cocaine.

19. The Rimmer guidelines indicated a starting point of upwards of 14 years' imprisonment for a quantity of more than 400 grams. The quantity of cocaine to be supplied in this case fell beyond this band.

20. The Crown noted that given the higher price that the cocaine was likely to be sold at to users, it would be unlikely that it would present a danger to users as they would be aware of the quality of the product given the price. It would also not be adulterated so it could be sold at the higher price and therefore an uplift for purity was not sought by the Crown.

21. Subject to any uplift, the Crown concluded that a starting point of 16 years' imprisonment was appropriate.

22. In relation to Count 4, the Bonnar guidelines indicated a starting point between 10 and 13 years' imprisonment for a quantity of between 2,500 and 4,000 units. The Defendant had 3,189 MDMA tablets with a street value between £63,780 and £95,670. The Crown took a starting point for Count 4 of 12 years' imprisonment. Valler uplift 23. The Crown referred to the case of Valler v Attorney General [2002] JLR 383 , in which the Court of Appeal considered the correct approach to be taken when sentencing an offender who was involved in the trafficking of " substantial quantities of more than one type of drug ". The Court of Appeal approved the Royal Court's approach of increasing the starting point of the most serious count in order to reflect the criminality of the other offences.

24. The instant case involved significant, commercial amounts of Class A substances, and the Crown concluded that a Valler uplift would be applicable and that an uplift of 6 months was appropriate to Count 3, relating to the Defendant being in possession with intent to supply cocaine, resulting in a starting point of 16 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Crown's conclusions The Crown moved as follows: Count 1 (being concerned in the supply of cocaine) 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment concurrent to all other counts (7 years' imprisonment starting point) Count 2 (being concerned in the supply of MDMA) 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment concurrent to all other counts (7 years' imprisonment starting point) Count 3 (possession with intent to supply cocaine) 11 years' imprisonment (16 years 6 months' imprisonment starting point (including Valler uplift of 6 months) Count 4 (possession with intent to supply MDMA) 8 years' imprisonment, concurrent to all other counts (12 years' imprisonment starting point) Count 5 (possession of cocaine) No separate penalty Total - 11 years' imprisonment Previous convictions 25. The Court noted that the Defendant had been sentenced in 2016 to 5½ years' imprisonment in respect of possession with intent to supply cocaine, supply of cocaine, and possession of cannabis. Mitigation 26. The Court found that the Defendant was entitled to full credit for his guilty pleas, entered at the first opportunity, although it was noted that the evidence against him was strong.

27. The Pre-Sentence Report noted that the Defendant accepted responsibility and admitted his guilt and had indicated that he had been struggling financially to fund his daily cocaine habit, using approximately one gram per day.

28. The probation officer accepted that the Defendant clearly regretted the offending, noting that he would miss the birth of his second child, as he did his first, due to serving a prison sentence.

29. Character references submitted on the Defendant's behalf, including a letter from his partner, attested to his strong work ethic and his care for his family. The Defendant had written a letter of remorse, which expressed deep regret for his actions and the impact that they had on others. Friends and members of the Defendant's family were present in court to support him. Advocate Jones argued that whilst credit had been given for the Defendant's guilty plea, no further credit had been given for his " genuine and sincere remorse ". However, we note that in the sentencing remarks when the Defendant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in 2016, the then Deputy Bailiff stated, " We accept that you feel genuine remorse and we also note that you are clearly a hard worker. " Having committed a second serious drug offence ten years after the first the Defendant should not be surprised if the Court attaches little weight to his expression of remorse.

30. The Court carefully considered everything said on behalf of the Defendant but was able to find little, if any, mitigation beyond his guilty plea. Sentence 31. Advocate Jones accepted that it was difficult to challenge the rationale for a 16½ years' starting point, which included a 6 months' Valler uplift. He did, however, refer us to the decision of the Superior Number in Attorney General v Rhodes [2025] JRC 236 , in which the defendant was sentenced to a period of 11 years' imprisonment for being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of cocaine, the estimated street value of the drugs seized in that case being between £450,000 and £750,000. The expert in that case noted that the purity of the cocaine seized was " high in comparison to typical street level seizures in Jersey. It is likely that the cocaine would have been sold to consumers as a premium product or adulterated to increase the volume and therefore increase the value to suppliers ".

32. Advocate Jones pointed out that the weight of the cocaine in Rhodes was approximately five times that in the instant case and in that case a starting point of 16 years with a 12-month uplift in respect of purity had been accepted by the Court. He contrasted this with the 16-year starting point suggested in the instant case with a 6-month Valler uplift and argued that we should therefore consider a reduction in the starting point. However, the Court noted that in Rhodes , whilst the quantity and purity of the cocaine was higher, the defendant played a lesser role and there was no other drug involved.

33. In relation to the Crown's conclusions the Court was of the view that, taking all the circumstances into account, the appropriate starting point was 15 years rather than the 16 suggested by the Crown. However, in relation to the Valler uplift, the Court regarded the appropriate uplift to be 18 months, given the quantity of MDMA involved.

34. Accordingly, the Court sentenced the Defendant as follows: Count 1 (being concerned in the supply of cocaine) 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment concurrent to all other counts (7 years' imprisonment starting point) Count 2 (being concerned in the supply of MDMA) 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment concurrent to all other counts (7 years' imprisonment starting point) Count 3 (possession with intent to supply cocaine) 11 years' imprisonment (15 years' imprisonment starting point with 18 months' Valler uplift) Count 4 (possession with intent to supply MDMA) 8 years' imprisonment, concurrent to all other counts (12 years' imprisonment starting point) Count 5 (possession of cocaine) No separate penalty Total: years' imprisonment Other orders Forfeiture and destruction 35. The Court made an order for the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and paraphernalia seized in this case, as well as the Defendant's mobile phone under Article 29 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 . Confiscation 36. The Crown was not in a position to make an application at the date of sentence, and we therefore postponed the matter of confiscation in accordance with Article 6 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 to 23 January 2026.

37. The Crown did not seek any order for costs. Authorities Rimmer v Attorney General [2001] JLR 373 . Bonnar & Noon v Attorney General [2001] JLR 626 . Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. McDonough v Attorney General [1994] JCA 193 . Attorney General v Antunes & Ors [2003] JRC 072 . Attorney General v Taylor [2019] JRC 027 . Valler v Attorney General [2002] JLR 383 . Attorney General v Rhodes [2025] JRC 236 . Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 Page Last Updated: 12 Feb 2026 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII