AG v Buckley Croke Crook Breen [2002] JRC 86 (29 April 2002)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. I will deal with Croke first. Croke, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of being concerned in the importation of 118 grams of heroin with a street value of between £35,000 and £53,000 and two offences of possession with intent to supply heroin on separate occasions, 17.8 grams on one occasion and 19.34 grams on the other.

2. As regards the importation offence, the appeal of Rimmer, Lusk, Bade -v- A. G. (2001) JLR 373 CofA suggests a starting point of 10 to 13 years for amounts of 100 to 250 grams. However, the Court of Appeal expressly stated that the bands are not to be treated as if set in stone. They are only guidelines and there may be exceptional cases where a starting point above or below the relevant band maybe appropriate.

3. We are quite satisfied that you are a professional drug dealer who has arranged the importation and onward distribution of heroin for gain. As you admitted in the taped conversations from the surveillance operation you have not been gainfully employed since your arrival in Jersey in 1993 and we have no doubt that in addition to your partner's earnings you have lived off your drug dealing activities. You have had no regard to the damage that your trade has caused to those who have purchased the heroin nor to the distress that it has caused to the families of such people.

4. We must sentence you today only for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. However, we are told by the Court of Appeal to have regard to the nature and scale of your activities and the degree of your involvement in drug trafficking. So often the Court has to deal with a courier who on a single occasion and for modest reward imports a consignment of heroin. We regard your activities as showing a much greater involvement in the drug trafficking trade than such a courier. You organised this importation. You recruited Aimée Crook as a courier and you would have benefited financially from the onward sale of the heroin which she brought in. Similarly the heroin in the other two counts was part of your stock in trade. If the importation charge had stood alone then, in the light of the degree of your involvement in organising it, we consider that a starting point towards the top end of the 10 to 13 year bracket would have been appropriate. But we need also to take into account the additional charges which you face, and for the reasons set out in A. G. -v- Valler (28 th February, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/48], having regard to the nature and scale of your activities and the level of your involvement in drug trafficking for gain, we consider that this is one of those rare cases where we should step outside the bands in Rimmer and agree with the starting point suggested by

the Crown of 14 years. In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea. This was not tendered initially; you denied it until the Court ruled against you on the admissibility of the surveillance evidence but you then admitted your guilt forthwith. We also take into account that you have had the care of two young children, to whom clearly you are devoted. We also take into account that you have no previous convictions for drug trafficking although you do have a number of previous convictions including possession of drugs.

5. In all the circumstances - and particularly having regard to the comments of the Court of Appeal in Welsh -v- A. G. (4 th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/72] CofA., to which we were referred - we think that a greater allowance should be made for the guilty plea than was made by the Crown. We think that the right amount to deduct for all the mitigation is 3 years. So the sentence in your case is: count 1, 7 years'; count 3, 7 years'; count 6, 11 years'; all of those to be concurrent.

6. We must also consider the suggestion that we should make a recommendation for deportation. We have regard to the principles set out in the case of R. -v- Nazari [1980] 3 All ER 880 CA. We have no doubt whatsoever that in view of your activities your continued presence in Jersey would be detrimental to the community. We must, however, consider the effect of a recommendation for deportation upon your family. You have a Jersey born partner and you have two Jersey born children. Nevertheless, we have to balance any hardship which would be caused to them in moving to Ireland upon your release - if the family unit were to remain - and the detriment caused to the island if you were to remain here. We have no doubt that, in the circumstances our duty to the community is to recommend deportation and we will make that recommendation.

7. Breen, you were convicted by this Court of being concerned in the importation of the 118 grams of heroin by Aimée Crook. You were found to have acted as middle man between Croke and the supplier in Ireland. Having regard to the nature and scale of your involvement in that importation we think that the correct starting point in the 10 to 13 year band is one of 11 years as suggested by the Crown. There is no mitigation available to you for a guilty plea because you pleaded not guilty. You also have a previous record, including some quite serious offences, but you have no previous convictions for drug offences. We accept that you are a heroin addict and that this was material to your involvement. In all the circumstances we think that the deduction made by the Crown of one year is correct and therefore the sentence in your case on count 6 is one of 10 years' imprisonment. In relation to deportation we apply the same principles. You, of course, had only just arrived in the island, you have no connection with Jersey and you have no family here. We are of the view that your continued presence in Jersey would be detrimental to the community and we therefore will make a recommendation for deportation.

8. Buckley, you are already serving a sentence of 6 years imprisonment for possession with intent to supply some 35 grams of heroin in August, 1999. You are now to be dealt with for two counts of possession with intent to supply in relation to an aggregate of about 37 grams. We accept that you were assisting Croke in the storage of two stashes of heroin pending their onward distribution. However, these offences were committed whilst you were on bail awaiting trial for the offences for which you are now in prison and they give the lie to your assertion before the Court in August 2001 that you had not been concerned with heroin for some eleven months. Nevertheless, you have pleaded guilty to these offences from the outset and that stands to your credit. We have also read your letter and the letter from your parents and your girlfriend and we have taken careful note of what they say. It is clear to us that you are making determined attempts now to try and turn your life around and in particular to try and overcome your heroin addiction which has led to your commission of all these offences.

9. In the light of the fact that these offences were committed before you were dealt with for the other offences in August, we have to try and stand back and see what would be the correct sentence for all of these offences taken together; in other words three separate offences of possession with intent to supply the relevant amounts of heroin by storing them. The position is complicated by the fact that you pleaded not guilty to the offence for which you are now in prison but guilty to these. Taking account of your age, your plea of guilty to these offences and the other mitigation which has been put forward by your family and by you, we think that the correct overall sentence for all three is, as the Crown suggests, a period of 9 years. In order to arrive at that sentence the sentence for these particular offences will therefore be one of 3 years' on counts 1 and 3, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentence which you are now serving.

10. Aimée Crook, you were recruited by Croke to act as a courier for the importation of 118 grams. This you willingly agreed to do but we are in no doubt that you did so because you are a heroin addict and you owed money to Croke. The Rimmer guideline would suggest 10 to 13 years for 100 - 250 grams. The Crown has suggested a starting point of 11 years but we see no justification for moving above the minimum in view of the amount, which was close to the bottom of the band and your role, which was as a courier. We therefore take a starting point of 10 years. In mitigation we take into account your age, your guilty plea from the outset, your troubled background, which we have had described to us, and all the information contained in the reports and also the letter from your mother and from you which we have read. We hope that you too can conquer your heroin addiction whilst you are in prison and we take note of the efforts you are making. All in all we think that the correct deduction is one of 3 years and therefore the sentence in your case on count 6 will be one of 7 years' imprisonment.

11. We order the forfeiture and destruction of all the drugs in this case.

12. Finally, we would like to endorse the comments of the Crown Advocate concerning the efforts of the police and customs team in this case. We can well understand that this was a prolonged investigation with long, anti-social hours and having to work in difficult circumstances. All of the members of the team led by Inspector Bonney can be very proud of their success in putting a stop to the activities of these defendants. Authorities Welsh -v- A. G. (4 th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/72] CofA. Rimmer, Lusk, Bade -v- A. G. (2001) JLR 373 CofA. A. G. -v- Valler (28 th February, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/48]. A. G. -v- Moy (10 th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/7]. A. G. -v- Price (2 nd August, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/170]. A. G. -v- Buckley (7 th August, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/179]. Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988: Article 3,3A. R. -v- Nazari [1980] 3 All ER 880 CA. Page Last Updated: 21 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII