The Attorney General v Jake Lee Thompson

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A [2025]JRC009 Royal Court (Samedi) 9 January 2025 Before : Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge, Austin Vautier, Averty, Hughes and Cornish. The Attorney General -v- Jake Lee Thompson Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge: 1 count of: Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition the importation of goods, contrary to Article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 Age: 25. Plea: Guilty Details of Offence: On 17 October 2024, the Defendant and his partner were stopped by Customs officers at Jersey Airport having arrived from Manchester. The Defendant told the officers that he and his partner had booked their flights the previous day and planned to stay for a week. They had not yet booked return flights and had not booked accommodation for their stay. The Defendant stated they were on holiday and that he was also looking for work as a mechanic. The officer took swabs of the Defendant’s backpack, his mobile phone and wallet. All three gave positive indications, which were very high, for the presence of cocaine. The Defendant initially denied any recent drug use but then told the officer that he had taken cocaine the previous night. The Defendant was searched by officers and a foreign object was found protruding

from his rectum. When asked what it was the Defendant stated that it contained cocaine. The Defendant passed the object, which was wrapped in a condom, and the contents were analysed and confirmed to be 113.37 grams of cocaine with a purity of 31%. The cocaine has a street value between £17,000 to £28,500 or, if sold in wholesale amounts, between £9,600 to £12,000. The Defendant’s mobile phone was seized on his arrest. It contained several messages relating to the importation. The evening prior to the importation, an associate messaged the Defendant telling him to get his story straight. Between 13 October 2024 and 17 October 2024 there are numerous calls and messages between the Defendant and his associate which indicated that the Defendant was not actively involved in sourcing the cocaine but was directed by the associate to book flights, meet someone to get the drugs and to have a story prepared for his arrival in Jersey. The messages indicate that the associate wanted to sell two ounces of cocaine (approximately 56.7 grams), for £7,000. Four ounces of cocaine is approximately 113.4 grams. The associate told the Defendant that he already had buyers lined up for the drugs, but the Defendant could arrange his own buyers or deals. The Defendant would be paid once he had sold the two ounces of cocaine. Details of Mitigation: The Defendant has the benefit of an early guilty plea.

The Defendant has no previous convictions, was cooperative with officers, providing a statement accepting his involvement and removing suspicion from other parties, and signed a Bank Disclosure Authority. Letter of remorse read by the Defendant in open court which was accepted as genuine. Letters from family and friends in support. Previous Convictions: The Defendant has no previous convictions. Conclusions: Count 1: Starting point 10 years’ imprisonment. 6 years’ imprisonment. Confiscation postponed until 28 March 2025. Forfeiture and destruction of drugs and Defendant’s mobile phone sought. No costs ordered. Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 1: Starting point 10 years’ imprisonment. 5 years’ and 8 months’ imprisonment. Confiscation postponed until 28 March 2025. Forfeiture and destruction of drugs and Defendant’s mobile phone ordered. No costs ordered. C. L. G. Carvalho, Crown Advocate. Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. You are to be sentenced today for one count of being knowingly concerned in the importation of just over a 100 grams cocaine.

2. We do not need to refer to the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that on the 17 October last year, you were spoken to by a customs officer at the airport, and you confirmed that you had nothing then to declare. You also told the officer in response to a question that you had used cocaine eight months previously and as result the officer took swabs of your backpack and other items which gave a strong positive indication for cocaine. You later confirmed that you had in fact taken cocaine the previous night.

3. You were searched and ultimately produced a condom containing cocaine which you had concealed internally. The cocaine, some 113.37 grams, with a purity of 31% would have had a street value of in Jersey of between £17,000 and £28,500 or if sold in wholesale amounts of between £9,600 and £12,000.

4. During interview, you had prepared a statement admitting that you had imported the cocaine into Jersey saying that you were a simple courier and that your partner who had travelled with you had no involvement with the importation.

5. Your mobile phone was analysed, and it contained a number of messages relating to the importation, the messages on your mobile phone have been interpreted as communications about the value that can be obtained for the drugs, and it appears you were to be paid the onward sale and not on the importation.

6. We accept for the purposes of today that you were a courier in effect, but clearly you were working closely with the organiser, and it is not clear fully what would of happened to the remainder of the drugs when the first part had been sold.

7. The Crown has put before us the case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 and we agree with the Crown’s assessment with the amount of cocaine at its purity puts it at the lower end of the band of imprisonment for importation.

8. You have no previous convictions, and you are assessed at a medium risk of re-conviction. You have the benefit of an early guilty plea entered at the first opportunity, although given the manner of the importation it might be said that the guilty plea was simply reflecting the fact that a conviction would have been all but inevitable. You were however, as we have indicated of previous good character, and you were cooperative with the prosecution authorities, and you have made a statement as we have said removing suspicion from any other parties.

9. We note that the mitigation available to you, therefore, as being your remorse, expressed in the letter that you wrote and that you read out in open court, and we take that remorse as genuine, the references in the form of the letters written on your behalf, your cooperation with the authorities, the work ethic that it appears that you had before your addiction, and as we have already said, your good character, a lack of previous convictions.

10. We defer the application for confiscation for a date, namely the 28 March at 10 am before this Court and taking all available mitigation and the surrounding circumstances into account, we feel that whereas the Crown’s conclusions are entirely correct in principle, we are able to make a very small further reduction, so from a starting point of 10 years’ you are sentenced to 5 years’ and 8 months’ imprisonment.

11. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the mobile phone. Authorities Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999