The Attorney General v John O’Connor, Alan Smitton, David Arrowsmith, Paul Howes, Norman Templeton-Brown and Neil Heskin

Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - supply - Class B - possession - Class A [2019]JRC093A Royal Court (Samedi) 23 May 2019 Before : Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden, Thomas, Pitman, Christensen and Averty The Attorney General -v- John O’Connor Alan Smitton David Arrowsmith Paul Howes Norman Templeton-Brown Neil Heskin Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused were remanded by the Inferior Number on 22nd March, 2019, following a guilty pleas to the following charges: John O’Connor 1 count of: Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 2). Age: 61. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: This case involved the professional and organised supply of cannabis in Jersey by a gang from Liverpool and Jersey, some of whom were seasoned drug dealers. On 9th November, 2017, the police carried out searches on a number of premises and recovered a total of over 35kgs of cannabis resin. 260 bars (24.3 kilos) was recovered from Arrowsmith’s flat with a potential street value of £500,000; 53 bars (4.9 kilos) from a garage used by Templeton-Brown with a potential street value of £100,000; and 62 bars (6 kilos) of cannabis resin with a potential street value of over £100,000 from the home address of Howes, where they also found 1.9g of MDMA, over £30,000 in cash and paraphernalia

connected with drug dealing. The prosecution case was that O’Connor, Smitton, Arrowsmith, Templeton-Brown and Heskin conspired together to supply cannabis within the Island. Howes was a local drug dealer who purchased from the gang. Although the total weight of the cannabis recovered was in excess of 35kgs, the amount attributed to the conspiracy was 31.5kgs, the remainder having been acquired by Howes from another source of supply. O’Connor, from Liverpool, was the organiser who liaised with the wholesale purchasers and co-ordinated the movement of the drugs between storage locations. Heskin, also from Liverpool, travelled to Jersey twice and was responsible for collecting the proceeds of the cannabis supply and moving it back to Liverpool for the unknown individuals at the top of the chain. Smitton was responsible for co-ordinating the supply of the drugs to local dealers. Templeton-Brown was in communication with co-conspirators from an early stage in the conspiracy and rented the garage for the drugs to be stored. Arrowsmith provided facilities for the storage of a very significant amount of the drugs. Howes was a local dealer who made wholesale purchases of cannabis from the gang for onward sale in Jersey. Details of Mitigation: Full credit for guilty plea; additional credit for delay. Previous Convictions: Smitton, Heskin and O’Connor appeared before the Royal Court in

2006 and received substantial terms of imprisonment for their part in a conspiracy to import commercial quantities of cannabis to Jersey by boat. O’Connor – conspiracy to import cannabis 2006 (6½ years imprisonment); several convictions for possession of controlled drugs dating back to 1994. Conclusions: Count 2: Starting point 13 years’ imprisonment. 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 2: Starting point 12 years’ imprisonment. 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. Confiscation order made in the sum of £429.00. Alan Smitton 1 count of: Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 2). Age: 46. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: See above Details of Mitigation: Some credit for guilty plea, but not the full amount, his plea having been entered shortly before the case was listed for trial. Previous Convictions: Smitton, Heskin and O’Connor appeared before the Royal Court in 2006 and received substantial terms of imprisonment for their part in a conspiracy to import commercial quantities of cannabis to Jersey by boat. Smitton - conspiracy to import cannabis 2006 (8 years imprisonment); possession of heroin and cannabis with intent to supply 2001 (6 years’ imprisonment); 2001 –

2 years’ imprisonment in France for drug related offending; numerous convictions for offences of dishonesty and violence dating back to 1991. Conclusions: Count 2: Starting point 13 years’ imprisonment. 11 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. Sentence and Observations of Court: Smitton also fell to be sentenced by the Superior Number on the same day for a separate conspiracy to supply heroin. Sentence on that matter took place immediately following this matter and the total sentence imposed on Smitton is dealt with in that judgement. The Court indicated that had Smitton been sentenced on this matter alone, he would have received 9 years’ imprisonment Count 2: Starting point 12 years’ imprisonment. 9 years’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. Confiscation hearing adjourned to 30th July, 2019. David Arrowsmith 1 count of: Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 2). Age: 57. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: See above. Details of Mitigation: Full credit for guilty plea; delay; personal mitigation. Previous Convictions: Convictions for offences of dishonesty dating back to 1975. Conclusions: Count 2: Starting point 10 years’ imprisonment. 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. Sentence and

Observations of Court: Count 2: Starting point 8 years’ imprisonment. 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. Confiscation hearing adjourned to 30th July, 2019. Paul Howes 1 count of: Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3). 1 count of Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 6). Age: 59. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: See above. Details of Mitigation: Full credit for guilty plea; no convictions since 1982; personal mitigation. Previous Convictions: Convictions for possession of controlled drugs in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Conclusions: Count 3: Starting point 3 months’ imprisonment. 2 months’ imprisonment Count 6 Starting point 5 years’ imprisonment. 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Total: 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 3: 2 months’ imprisonment Count 6 Starting point 5 years’ imprisonment. 3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent. Total: 3 years imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs made. Confiscation order made in the sum of £109,315.00. Norman Templeton-Brown 1 count of: Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b)

of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 2). Age: 54. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: See above. Details of Mitigation: Some credit for guilty plea but less than the others as he had put forward a version of events in the course of a Newton hearing which was not accepted by the Court. Previous Convictions: Convictions for possession of controlled drugs dating back to 1988. Conclusions: Count 2: Starting point 10 years’ imprisonment. 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 2: Starting point 9 years’ imprisonment. 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. Confiscation hearing adjourned until 30th July, 2019. Neil Heskin 1 count of: Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 2). Age: 39. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: See above. Details of Mitigation: Full credit for guilty plea. Previous Convictions: Smitton, Heskin and O’Connor appeared before the Royal Court in 2006 and received substantial terms of imprisonment for their part in a conspiracy to import commercial quantities of cannabis to Jersey by boat. Heskin - conspiracy to import cannabis 2006 (6½ years imprisonment); convictions for offences of dishonesty and violence dating back to 1995. Conclusions: Count

2: Starting point 13 years’ imprisonment. 8 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 2: Starting point 12 years’ imprisonment. 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered. Confiscation order made in the sum of £1. S. C. Thomas Esq., Crown Advocate. Advocated M. J. Haines for Defendant O’Connor. Advocate R. Morley-Kirk for Defendant Smitton Advocate A. M. Harrison for Defendant Arrowsmith. Advocate P. G. Nicholls for Defendant Howes. Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Defendant Templeton Brown Advocate C. G. Hillier for Defendant Heskin.

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. The defendants O’Connor, Smitton, Arrowsmith, Heskin and Templeton-Brown are here to be sentenced for conspiracy to supply a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. The drug in question was cannabis and the maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment. Howes is here on a different Indictment which is the possession of cannabis with the intent to supply, and he is not part of the conspiracy. The same maximum sentence is involved.

2. We are looking at quantities here which are well summarised in a statement from DS McGranahan. The conspiracy generally involved a combined weight of 31kgs. The amount of cannabis found in the possession of Arrowsmith was a lower amount of 24.3kgs and the amount which was found in the possession of Templeton-Brown 4.9kgs.

3. Our approach is to apply the case of Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 and therefore we are first charged to fix starting points which are assessed having regard to the weight of drugs which is attributable to each of the conspirators, or in the case of Howes to his possession with intent to supply, and then we have to assess their involvement in drug trafficking.

4. In the cases of O’Connor and Smitton and Heskin, there seems little doubt that they were the most involved of the defendants before us in this operation. We do not say for a moment that they are the only persons involved and there may well be others above them in the chain, but nonetheless, O’Connor was responsible for coordinating the arrangements in Jersey by ensuring the drugs arrived and liaising with Smitton who is a Jersey resident who was going to be responsible for the Jersey distributions. Heskin, it was accepted was going to be responsible for the money arrangements. We think that they take full responsibility for the drugs in question which weigh over 30kgs and therefore fall into the bracket of the Campbell guidelines that our starting point should be over 10 years’ imprisonment.

5. It is said to us that we are not entitled to take into account the previous convictions which the three of them have for drug trafficking, in particular, convictions in 2006 for drug trafficking offences in relation to cannabis in Jersey. We do not accept that. We think that their involvement in drug trafficking can be established not only from the amount of drugs which are involved but also from looking at their conduct more generally and that if they have previous convictions for drug trafficking that shows a higher degree of drug trafficking involvement than would otherwise be the case. It is said by Advocate Haines that in effect that means that we are going to sentence them again because we are taking the present offences as being aggravated by the convictions they have. We do not see it that way. We think that what we are charged to do on the authorities is to look at the involvement in drug trafficking and that it stands to reason that if a person has previous convictions for drug trafficking and commits a further offence of a similar kind one can conclude that his involvement is greater. In particular we also take into account that the danger to the public is increased by these offences where they occur with a regularity in relation to the same offenders, because presumably they will have learnt what went wrong on previous occasions and they continue to do it and will be therefore more professional in the way they go about it next time round.

6. We also do not accept the view to the extent it was expressed that Heskin has a lower involvement because his role was only to look after the money. This is a commercial operation and the money arrangements are just as important as the other arrangements which have to be made to bring the drugs into the island and sell them. So we think there is no distinction to be made between O’Connor and Smitton and Heskin and having regard to the factors which I have mentioned we think the right starting point for each of those three was 12 years’ imprisonment. We have taken into account the other cases which were referred to by Advocate Haines and we think there is some distinction to be made which is why we have reduced the Crown’s conclusions as to the starting point by 1 year.

7. In so far as Mr Arrowsmith is concerned, his basis of plea was that he accepted that he would take custody of 23kgs. As Advocate Harrison said on his behalf, he joined the conspiracy late or he seems to have done so. His was an important role. He had to hold the drugs in a safe place until such time as they were to be made available to those who were purchasing them and it should not be understated that custodians play a very important part in a conspiracy of this kind. Arrowsmith was a custodian, but we accept that his basis of plea that sets out the limit of his knowledge at 23kgs and that was not challenged by the Crown, and in those circumstances we take him to fall within the lower bracket on the Campbell guidelines as the weight involved is between 10 and 30kgs and we have taken for him a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment.

8. As far as Templeton-Brown is concerned his case is more difficult. He said, in his evidence at the Newton hearing, that his involvement was limited to receiving a telephone call while he was on holiday in India, when he agreed to make his garage available for the storage of some drugs. He told us that he did not accept that he was involved in the conspiracy at any earlier stage because the discussions which he had with one of his co-defendants in September related to some invitations to the Chester Races. He told us that he did not know the quantity involved and it is said that we should have regard to the amount that was actually found in his garage, which was 4.9kgs. He did tell us at the Newton hearing that he had gone to inspect the garage when he came back from holiday in India and had changed the padlock on the garage, which of course secured the drugs in the garage for that much longer. We did not accept that the Crown had established that a meeting which he had with one of his co-defendants, Heskin, was for the purposes of transferring money to Heskin. However, we also made it plain at the closing of the Newton hearing that we did not accept his basis of plea either. We found that his statement to us, that his involvement started when he was on holiday in India and that he simply accepted that he would make his garage available for an unknown quantity of drugs to be

left in that garage, we found that to be incredible. We did not accept his evidence in relation to the Chester Races. So we said at the close of the Newton hearing that we concluded that he was more than a mere custodian, but he was a custodian, he had an important part to play. Today we do not see that he should get any credit for not knowing how much cannabis would in fact be stored on the premises. He agreed that he would be part of this conspiracy and he has to accept that in our view. Accordingly we take the view that he has a lesser involvement than O’Connor, Heskin and Smitton and we fix a starting point in relation to Templeton-Brown at 9 years’ imprisonment.

9. In relation to Howes, we have taken a starting point of 5 years. He was the “go to” street dealer, and he had at least two different suppliers.

10. We now turn to the mitigation which they have. (i) In relation to O’Connor, he has a guilty plea for which we give full credit and we think that he is entitled to some additional credit for the delay before this matter has come up for sentence. (ii) In relation to Smitton, he is entitled to some discount for a guilty plea but we do not think he is entitled to the full discount. (iii) In relation to Heskin he is entitled to a discount for the guilty plea and we also have given him some credit. When I say he is entitled to a discount for the guilty plea he does not get a full third but we give him some credit for the fact that it was on the facts open to him to have implicated his co-defendant Hodge; but he did not do that and to that extent he gets some credit for that. (iv) In relation to Templeton-Brown, he is entitled to some credit but not the full amount for a guilty plea but we take into account that he has basically been of good character for some time and that he has some other personal mitigation which we have taken into account. (v) In relation to Arrowsmith we think that he is entitled to credit for his guilty plea. He has no previous drugs convictions, there has been delay and there has been some personal mitigation as set out before us which we have taken into account. (vi) In relation to Howes, he too is entitled to a full discount for his guilty plea. He has been of good character since 1982 which is a matter which stands to his credit and of course he was not as I have said part of the conspiracy so we treat him quite separately in that respect. He has some other personal mitigation which again is available to him as described to us and on the papers.

11. We have reached the following conclusions in relation to sentence having regard to all those things: (i) Mr O’Connor you are sentenced to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. (ii) Mr Heskin you are sentenced to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. (iii) Mr Templeton-Brown you are sentenced to 5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. (iv) Mr Arrowsmith you are sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. (v) Mr Howes you are sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on the charge of possession with intent to supply and 2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent, on the charge of possession of MDMA. (vi) Mr Smitton, you are not being sentenced now, but in order that your co-accused should know what sentence you would have got now had you been sentenced, you are not entitled to the same discount for the guilty plea, there appears to be no other mitigation that we have been addressed on, I appreciate that may come later this afternoon, and therefore on the information we currently have we would have sentenced you to 9 years’ imprisonment.

12. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

13. The postponed confiscation hearings will take place on 30th July, at 2:30pm. Authorities Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136.