AG v Biggins (Royal Court : Sentencing (Criminal)) [2025] JRC 073 (17 March 2025)

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. Mr Biggins, Count 1 charges you with being knowingly concerned in the importation of a controlled drug namely, cocaine in October 2024. The amount involved is 113 grams with a purity of 31% having a wholesale value of £9,600 to £12,000 and a street value of £17,000 to £28,500. The drugs were brought into the Island internally by your colleague Jake Thompson your friend, who was sentenced to 5 years and 8 months' imprisonment on a plea to that importation earlier this year.

2. The summary of facts shows that Mr Thompson was a simple carrier, but you were one step above him in the organisation of this importation. You had come to the Island a couple of days before him, had been given the contact details of a man who would assist him in the onward transmission of the drugs, and it was clear that you were responsible for some sourcing of them.

3. Count 2, charges you with bringing just under 1 gram of cocaine into the prison at La Moye and passing it to Mr Thompson. You did this when visiting him when he was on remand pending trial. We have seen the video recording of you doing this. You were only charged today with Count 1, and you have entered a guilty plea. You were charged with Count 2, the day after your arrest in November, and you pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. So, on both those counts you are entitled to a full discount for those pleas.

4. You are 28 years old. You have some previous convictions, but none for drugs offences. On the importation offence we take a starting point of 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment, in accordance with the guideline case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 . We have fixed on that starting point having regard to your greater role than your colleague Mr Thompson. As I said, you have pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, and you are entitled to a full discount for that plea. We have taken into account everything that is in the Social Enquiry Report and the references and your letter of remorse which you produced and considered all that your counsel has said on your behalf.

5. Nonetheless, this was a commercial importation carried out for the purposes of making economic gain at the expense of the health and mental equilibrium of Islanders, and you yourself from your own experience of cocaine know how damaging the taking of this drug can be. There is no excuse for that conduct and that is why the Rimmer guidelines are as they are. They seem to lead to long sentences and they do, but there is a purpose behind them. This Court is determined to play its part in protecting Islanders from being exploited and put at risk in this way, by those who wish to make money.

6. As to Count 2, it has been said by this Court previously that the conveyance of drugs into the prison is an extremely serious offence. The charge that has been brought against you, is a relatively new charge and in the earlier cases it was charged either as supply with the fact of being a supplier in prison treated as an aggravating factor or as possession with intent to supply when the supply never actually took place. But the importance of the seriousness of the offence is marked by the letter that the Court has received from the acting Prison Governor which I am going to read. "I am writing to the Court to emphasise the Impact which the conveyance of illicit drugs into the States of Jersey Prison has on welfare and discipline within secure prison environment. The introduction of Class A drugs into a custodial environment should be considered as a significant aggravating factor in sentencing due to the profound and far-reaching consequences on prison welfare, security, and discipline. The presence of controlled substances within a prison setting directly undermines our rehabilitation efforts, fuels violence and exploitation, and compromises the safety of both staff and prisoners. Illicit drug use within prisons contributes to increased incidents of bullying, debt related intimidation, and organised criminal activity. The trade in controlled substances, fosters corruption,

coercion, and violent disputes destabilising the good order and discipline within the establishment. Furthermore, drug dependency among prisoners exacerbates mental health issues, increases vulnerability to self-harm, and places significant strain on healthcare services within the prison. States of Jersey Prison makes continuous efforts to support rehabilitation and reduce re-offending. The introduction and circulation of illicit drugs to a prison environment severely hinders those objectives by reinforcing cycles of addiction, criminality and institutional disorder. It is, therefore, important that the Court consider the severe impact of drug trafficking into prisons as a matter of public interest and a direct threat to prison safety, discipline and effective rehabilitation. By providing this information, we seek to assist the Court in understanding the gravity of such offences and the urgent need for deterrents through appropriate sentencing measures." 7. We all consider those remarks by the acting Governor to be extremely sensible and pertinent and we take them into account. It is absolutely necessary in our view that a deterrent sentence should be imposed for this offence, and we want to give the clearest possible signal that those who take drugs into the prison can expect tough sentences in the future.

8. We have considered in this context, some of those of remarks of the Prison Governor against your own facts. You took a gram of cocaine into your friend knowing that he had a problem with cocaine and presumably therefore affecting his ability to make progress on rehabilitation while he was in the prison, and that emphasises how accurate the Governor's comments in this respect are.

9. We have considered whether or not we should apply the Rimmer -v- AG guidelines in terms of starting points and we think that we should with a small qualification to them. We recognise that previously they may not have been applied - these were very old cases in 2003 and 2005 or thereabouts, the cases of AG -v-Sheldrake [2003] JRC 166 and AG v Harris [2005] JRC 094 - but in our view there is no doubt that this was a trafficking offence, we cannot see the difference between the supply of goods like cocaine outside the prison being a trafficking offence and the supply of goods inside the prison not being a trafficking offence. It seems to us that they are both trafficking offences, and therefore the rationale, the logic, of the Rimmer v AG guidelines should be applied.

10. On this occasion 1 gram of cocaine would on the application of those guidelines give rise to a sentence of a starting point of 7 years' imprisonment and we do not think that is sufficient, because the difference between a gram being supplied outside the prison and a gram being supplied inside the prison has not been suitably marked, and we are therefore taking a starting point in this case of 8 years' imprisonment, and from that we are applying the full discount for your guilty plea by way of mitigation and such other mitigation as your counsel has so fluently put before us.

11. We consider that an offence in the present case in Count 2, merits the sentence of 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. So, on the importation offence, we take a starting point of 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment and after mitigation 6 years' imprisonment; on the supply in prison, 4 years and six months imprisonment. Applying ordinary principles, the supply offence should be taken consecutively it was a completely it was a different offence. It happened a month after the first one and that would give rise to a sentence in total of 10 years' 6 months' imprisonment. That is much too high, and on totality grounds we have to reduce one or other or make the offence of supplying in the prison, conveyance into the prison, concurrent.

12. In order to emphasise the importance of the seriousness with which taking drugs into the prison is going to be treated by this Court we think it ought to be a consecutive sentence and therefore, that requires us to reduce quite considerably the sentence on the importation offence if it is to reach the overall sentence which we think you should serve. So, would you stand up please.

13. You are hereby sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment on Count 1, and 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment consecutive on Count 2, making a total of 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment, and you will serve that total of 8 year and 6 months' imprisonment. It is the same figure as the Crown has reached but we have arrived at it by a different route, and in addition we order the drugs to be forfeited and destroyed.

14. Now, it is a long time, we recognise that it is likely that you will be serving most of it in Jersey because of the difficulties in prison accommodation in the United Kingdom. One of the differences about serving the sentence over here, is that there are real opportunities in our prison for rehabilitation, and we hope that you will take that opportunity and all the opportunities which are available to you to get your life back on track, because by the time you come out after the time that you will have knocked off for good behaviour in the prison, you will have had a good opportunity to clean yourself of drugs and of your addiction and you will still be a relatively young man of 35. You have got years ahead of you to put your life right. Authorities Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 Prison (Jersey) Law 1957 Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001 Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 AG v Thompson [2025] JRC 009 Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 AG -v-Sheldrake [2003] JRC 166 AG v Harris [ [2005] JRC 094 Page Last Updated: 02 Apr 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII