The Attorney General v Anthony Andrew Dryden and Nicholas Whitcombe

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - conspiracy to commit a statutory offence, importation, possession. [2022]JRC007 Royal Court (Samedi) 5 January 2022 Before : R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden, Averty and Hughes The Attorney General -v- Anthony Andrew Dryden Nicholas Whitcombe Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges: Anthony Andrew Dryden 2 counts of: Conspiracy to commit a statutory offence, contrary to Article 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009. (Counts 1 and 2). 1 count of: Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law, 1999. (Count 3). 1 count of: Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. (Count 4). Age: 31. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: The Defendants conspired together to import cannabis resin into Jersey via the postal system (Count 1) and then to remove criminal property, namely the cash proceeds of the sale of the drugs, from the Island (Count 2). Dryden was later involved in a further importation of cannabis that did not involve Whitcombe (Count 3), and on 10th July 2019, he was found in possession of cannabis at his home (Count 4). The two met in 2015 while Whitcombe was serving a

six-year sentence at HMP La Moye for his involvement in importing MDMA, mephedrone and cannabis into the Island, and Dryden had been sentenced to two years and nine months for possessing almost 2 kilos of the Class B drug mephedrone. Whitcombe, based in Merseyside, arranged for packages to be sent from England Jersey. The course of the conspiracy is captured by messages exchanged in 2018 and 2019. Whitcombe was careful not to have direct contact with those sending the drugs, and that the cash being sent back went through other hands before getting to him. The cannabis was sent to a third party at his work address, the packages labelled as tools of some sort. Dryden sold the drugs, collected the cash and sent it back to a variety of UK addresses provided by Whitcombe. There were three importations of cannabis weighing a total of 3.1 kilograms with an estimated street value of between £46,500 – £62,000 (Count 1), and three exports of cash totalling £16,750 (Count 2) between June and September 2018. In December 2018 Whitcombe told Dryden that he was handing the UK side of the operation over to his best friend and would pass Dryden their details. In March 2019 Whitcombe assisted Dryden with a fourth importation (also included in Count 1) (between 500 grams – 1 kg of cannabis, with an estimated street value of £7,500 – £20,000), by providing the details of his contact in the UK who

would send the drugs. Dryden was then working with another party to supply a delivery address, Przemyslaw Czarnecki. In June 2019, a parcel of 451.69 grams of cannabis resin with an estimated street value of £6,750 – £9,000 was intercepted by Customs, leading to Czarnecki’s arrest. His mobile phone was seized and found to contain messages to Dryden about the delivery (Czarnecki was convicted of being concerned in the importation as well as other offences and sentenced to imprisonment, see AG v Czarnecki [2020] JRC 177). On the basis of that importation (Count 3) Dryden was arrested in July 2019, at which time he was found in possession of 13.41 grams of cannabis with an estimated street value of between £200 – £270 (Count 4). His mobile phone was seized, the examination of which revealed the messages with Whitcombe, using a secure app known as ‘Signal’, and evidenced the conspiracy. Details of Mitigation: Guilty pleas, although these were all but inevitable on the basis of the phone messages discovered. Some delay, partly due to COVID and the fact that Whitcombe needed to be brought back from the UK on a warrant. Dryden claimed to have stopped using cannabis since his initial arrest. Since his release, Whitcombe had run a gym business in the UK and held himself out as a reformed character in a number of publications, including the Jersey Evening Post. He started reoffending

very soon after his release, and as he said in the messages, the easiest way to launder drug proceeds is to start a business you enjoy: “You get to clean your money and you’ll slowly get better at it and eventually it’ll be your legit business.” Previous Convictions: Convictions related to drugs, including the offences for which he was imprisoned in 2014, and a cannabis supply charge when he was 15. 2006 conviction for drink driving. Conclusions: Count 1: Starting point 3½ years’ imprisonment. 2½ years’ imprisonment. Count 2: 12 months’ imprisonment, consecutive. Court 3: 6 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Count 4: 1 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Total: 3½ years’ imprisonment. Declaration of Benefit sought in the sum of £89,307. Confiscation Order sought in the sum of £6,307. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 1: Starting point 3½ years’ imprisonment. 2 years’ imprisonment. Count 2: 12 months’ imprisonment, consecutive. Count 3: 6 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 and concurrent to Count 2. Count 4: 1 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Total: 3 years’ imprisonment. Confiscation adjourned. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. Nicholas Whitcombe 2 counts of: Conspiracy to commit a statutory offence, contrary to Article 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009. (Count 1 and

2). Age: 31. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: See above. Details of Mitigation: See above. Previous Convictions: Whitcombe: Imprisoned for drug trafficking offences in Jersey, for which he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Conviction for actual bodily harm when aged 13 and cautions for assault from 2012. Conclusions: Count 1: Starting point 3½ years’ imprisonment. 2½ years’ imprisonment. Count 2: 12 months’ imprisonment, consecutive. Total: 3½ years’ imprisonment. Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £54,406. Confiscation order sought in the sum of £54,406. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 1: 2 years’ imprisonment. Count 2: 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive. Total: 3 years’ imprisonment. Confiscation adjourned. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. R. C. P. Pedley, Crown Advocate. Advocate G. N. A. Pearce for the defendant Dryden. Advocate J. C. Gollop for the defendant Whitcombe.

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. We first make orders in relation to confiscation. We adjourn the confiscation hearing against both Defendants to the 21st February 2022 at 10:00 a.m. with a time estimate of half a day. We order the Crown to provide the material referred to in the Attorney General’s statement of 29th December, 2021 by 5:00 p.m. on the 14th January 2022 and both Defendants to respond to the Attorney General’s statement by 5:00 p.m. on the 14th February of this year.

2. We now turn to sentence and we are going to give the full reasons for our decision on sentence in writing in due course, but we will announce our sentence today and give very brief reasons for that.

3. Anthony Dryden and Nicholas Whitcombe stand up. You are both 31 years old. Neither of you are young men. You are both, in the opinion of this Court, professional drug dealers and certainly you were at the time of committing these offences. You met in prison in 2015 when you Whitcombe were serving a six year sentence for importing various drugs into this Island, including cannabis, and you, Dryden were serving a sentence of two years and nine months with possession with intent to supply of 2 kilos of a Class B drug mephedrone.

4. As revealed by the Probation Reports, you were both fully aware of the legislation in relation to drug trafficking when you committed these offences. In the course of approximately 10 months you arranged for four substantial importations of cannabis. In three incidences the quantity of the drugs can be identified. The total quantity of cannabis resin was 3.1 kilograms, plus a further amount on the fourth occasion which cannot be identified and was estimated to be in between 500 grams and 1 kilogram. Accordingly, the minimum quantity of cannabis imported was 3.6 kilograms with the lowest street value of this quantity being £54,000.00.

5. In addition, and subject to Count 2 on the indictment, you Dryden exported to Whitcombe on three occasions the proceeds of crime coming to a value of £16,750.00 and you did so in cash. We will deal with the detail of the offending in our reasoned judgment, but this is a serious case of money laundering and we have no doubt that a consecutive sentence is warranted for that offence.

6. We have had regard to the principles to be considered in accordance with the decision of the Superior Number in AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC165. In this case the underlying offence was drug trafficking, but the money laundering activities that you both engaged in were crucial to the funding of the criminal enterprise that you both embarked upon.

7. Both of you had extensive knowledge of the predicate offence. The amount of money I have just referred to and the duration and sophistication of the money laundering operation, particularly having regard to the contents of the communication between you was significant. I have said you are professional drug dealers; you are also quite separately skilled money launderers.

8. We give you credit for your pleas of guilty and all the mitigation urged on your behalf: (i) Count 1, you are both sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, from a starting point of 3½ years. (ii) Count 2, you are both sentenced to 12 month’s imprisonment, consecutive, from a starting point of 3 years. (iii) Court 3, Dryden, you are sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 but concurrent with Count 2 (iv) Count 4, Dryden one month imprisonment concurrent.

9. Making a total sentence in both cases of 3 years’ imprisonment. Authorities Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009. Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999. Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC165. AG v Hall [2021] JRC082. AG v Czarnecki [2020] JRC177. AG v Thurban & ors [2020] JRC191A. AG v Hagin [2020] JRC176. AG v Hagin [2020] JRC157. AG v Thurban & ors [2020] JRC212. AG v Safapour [2019] JRC239. AG v O’Connor et al [2019] RC093A. AG v Roslan, Whitecombe and Lagadu [2015] JRC030A. AG v Dryden [2014] JRC172. Campbell v AG [1995] JLR136. Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC181A. AG v Agathangelou, Bayliss, Bisson & Morgan [2021] JRC056. AG v Brennan [2016] JRC 234.