AG -v- Fage and Romeril [2014] JRC 114 (16 May 2014)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are here to be sentenced on two Indictments in the case of you Mr Fage and one Indictment in the case of you Mr Romeril, which involve importing medicinal products or being knowingly concerned in the importation of controlled drugs and also for the supply of controlled drugs. The drugs concerned were methylethcathinone or benzofuran. The methodology for importation was an order of what used to be legal, described as, although they weren't legal, legal highs, and the drugs have been added to the lists of drugs which are now classified under Part B.

2. These are dangerous substances and, as you know, they can kill. It is stupid to import them for your own use and it is dangerous to supply others. This was a sustained effort by you both and normally offences of this kind call for a custodial sentence. In your cases, you were 19 and 18 respectively, at the time of the offending, and we apply the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law to you and we therefore are not going to be sending you to youth detention or prison as the case might be. We are going to impose a sentence of community service, as indeed has been moved for by the Crown and, in fact, we are going to impose the community service that the Crown have suggested is the right number of hours. I want to explain a little bit more our reasoning for doing so.

3. As presently constituted, this Court thinks that the prevalence of these offences and the dangers and the risks of these drugs to those who take them, is such that if there is a tariff of 180 hours community service, which is one of the suggestions that has been made to us by your counsel as appears from the cases which are in the bundle at which we have looked - we doubt there is a tariff - we think it ought to be increased. We do not consider that 180 hours community service reflects the danger of these substances and, in particular, we draw a distinction between the case of supplying these drugs to others and importing the drugs for yourself. In this case we note that the Crown has not distinguished, in the case of Mr Romeril, Count 17 which is the supply charge. We do not think that is right. We think there should have been a distinction but given that no such distinction has been drawn in the conclusions we are not going to disturb that today but for future purposes, the Court might well do so and Mr Romeril you can just count yourself as lucky on this occasion that the Crown has not reached that conclusion.

4. We have given consideration to two matters in particular. The first is whether or not we should treat you equally and Mr Fage, we treat you as more culpable for these reasons. First of all you are older and because you are older you should know better. You started the offending before your brother, or so it appears from what we have seen, you have committed more offences and over a longer period and there are two supply charges for you as opposed to one in the case of your younger brother. So we do think it is right to distinguish between the two of you and that is why we are doing so.

5. We have considered carefully the question of delay and in our view the Crown are culpable in some respects but they are not nearly as culpable as your defence counsel in both cases have suggested. There is authority in money laundering cases to the effect that the investigation of such cases is complex and is bound to take time by the nature of the offending and a defendant cannot have the benefit of his own misconduct in that respect. It seems to us a similar argument is valid here. Investigation of offending required an analysis of internet ordering, financial statements, and a comparison with admissions made and we can understand that these investigations take some time. It is not as straightforward as some other cases might be when, for example, the police come across somebody emerging at dead of night from a house with a large sack marked "swag" over his shoulder; it is not the same, it is not as obvious and so while you are entitled to feel aggrieved at the delay, we do not think you are as entitled as all that, if I can put it that way. But we have taken into account that the offending has been hanging over your heads for some time and we certainly do take that into account in the sentence we impose. But it is really because we think that the number of hours ought to have been higher that had there not been that delay we would have imposed a higher amount of community service in each of your cases.

6. In our view the truth of the matter today is that the Crown have it right in saying that your conduct since the investigation commenced in October 2012 and the time taken to get to today make their conclusions appropriate. So we acknowledge the things that you have going for you, your guilty pleas, the remorse that you have expressed, the letters you have written, the remorse that is shown there and is referred to in the references which have been put forward. You have shown a good reaction to these charges and it is clear that the time has, in a sense, worked in your favour because you have both matured over that period and you have got permanent employment and you are lucky to have a father able to help you. We hope that you will learn from this experience, that you will learn actually that the charges that you have been facing today are very serious charges and could have had a very, very poor outcome for you and it is only for the reasons that I have given that you are ending with orders for community service.

7. Mr Fage, you are sentenced to a total of 240 hours' community service.

8. Mr Romeril you are sentenced to a total of 180 hours' community service.

9. The breakdown of those sentences is as set out in the Crown's conclusions on each count. We adopt those conclusions without my having to read them out now.

10. You should know that the equivalent to 240 hours' community service is 18 months' imprisonment and the equivalent to 180 hours' community service is 12 months' youth detention and, if you do not perform the community service or if you breach its terms in any way, then you are liable to be brought back to Court and you can be sentenced for these offences again so you should be aware that you must perform it. We have no doubt that you will but you should be aware that there are consequences if you do not because these are serious charges.

11. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. AG v Crabtree [2013] JRC 196 . AG v L'Enfant [2013] JRC 169 . AG v Moody [2012] JRC 183 . AG v Sanguy [2012] JRC 170A . AG v Smith and Jackson [2010] JRC 086 . Page Last Updated: 23 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII