The Attorney General v Michael Joseph McInerney
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Sentencing Following Guilty Plea / Superior Number of the Royal Court
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the appropriate starting point was 8 years' imprisonment, but after considering the mitigating factors it reduced the sentence slightly to 4½ years' imprisonment and ordered forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Court disposition
Guilty plea sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Orders
- 4½ years' imprisonment
- Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs
02
Material facts
Parties
The Attorney General
Applicant Counsel: C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown AdvocateMichael Joseph McInerney
Defendant Counsel: Advocate C. L. NicolleAmounts and remedies
- Age: 21
- Heroin Quantity (grams): 34.49
- Heroin Quantity (grams): 34
- Street Value: GBP 34,490
- Wholesale Value Lower Bound: GBP 10,470
- Wholesale Value Upper Bound: GBP 17,245
- Sentence Length (years): 4.5
- Starting Point (years): 8
03
Procedural history
Posture
Sentencing Following Guilty Plea / Superior Number of the Royal Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
What sentence should be imposed for knowingly being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug.
- 02
Whether the defendant's claimed threats and role as a courier should materially mitigate sentence.
- 03
Whether forfeiture and destruction of the drugs should be ordered.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown accepted that the defendant was a mere courier but contended that the threats he said he had received did not amount to mitigation; the Crown sought a starting point of 8 years' imprisonment and forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
- Respondent
- The defence relied on the guilty plea, co-operation, youth, difficult upbringing, and the defendant's efforts in prison to improve his skills; the defendant also relied on having been threatened in Liverpool.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Judgment, para. 1
Threats are part of the vicious and nasty business of trafficking in drugs and will not ordinarily be treated as important mitigating factors.
- 02
Judgment, para. 2
The court agreed that the starting point for importing 34 grams of heroin internally was 8 years' imprisonment before mitigation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the appropriate starting point was 8 years' imprisonment, but after considering the mitigating factors it reduced the sentence slightly to 4½ years' imprisonment and ordered forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted it was impressed by what the defendant had been doing in prison in terms of courses to improve his skills and help him make something of his life after release.
Court disposition
Guilty plea sentenced to 4½ years' imprisonment with forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
- 4½ years' imprisonment
- Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[2009]JRC069
ROYAL COURT (Samedi Division) 15th April 2009 Before : Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo, Le Breton, Clapham, Le Cornu, Newcombe and Liddiard. The Attorney General -v- Michael Joseph McInerney Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 20th February, 2009, following a guilty plea to the following charge: 1 count of: Being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug, contrary to article 61(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise(Jersey) Law 1999. (Count 1). Age: 21. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: On 17th December, 2008, McInerney was stopped as he came through customs off the ferry from Portsmouth. He told Customs Officers that he was visiting his girlfriend who he had met on the internet, but could not provide a name or address for her. He was arrested and detained and later admitted that he was carrying heroin internally. He eventually passed 3 plastic wrapped packages containing 34.49 grams of heroin containing between 14% and 16% by weight of diarmorphine. These drugs had a street value of £34,490 and a wholesale value of between £10,470 and £17,245. In subsequent interview McInerney admitted importing the heroin in order to clear a drug debt in Liverpool, and said that his family had been threatened. The Crown accepted that he was
a mere courier, but contended that the threats did not amount to mitigation. Details of Mitigation: Guilty pleas, co-operation, youth, and difficult upbringing. Previous Convictions: 2 previous convictions comprising 4 offences, including 2 for simple possession of cannabis, and 1 for possession of crack cocaine with intent to supply. Conclusions: Count 1: Starting point 8 years. 5 years’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. Sentence and Observations of Court: The Court agreed with the Crown’s starting point but felt it could make a further small reduction, ordering a sentence of 4½ years’ imprisonment. Count 1: 4½ years’ imprisonment. Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate. Advocate C. L. Nicolle for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. McInerney imported into Jersey 34 grams of heroin concealed internally. Having initially given a false story to the investigating officers, he subsequently admitted the truth and has pleaded guilty to the Indictment. He has given a story of having been threatened in Liverpool but, as this Court has said on many occasions, threats are all part of the vicious and nasty business of trafficking in drugs and the Court will not consider such matters to be important mitigating factors.
2. We agree with the Crown Advocate that the starting point in this case in one of 8 years’ imprisonment. We have given very careful consideration to all the matters urged by Defence Counsel in mitigation and we feel able to reduce very slightly the conclusions of the Crown Advocate.
3. The Court is impressed with what you have been doing in prison in terms of courses in order to try to improve your skills so that when you come out of prison you will be able to make something of your life and hopefully break away from the associates and the drugs involvement that you have had over far too many years.
4. We have to punish you for the offence of bringing this vicious drug into Jersey and the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 4½ years.
5. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. Rimmer and Others-v-AG [2002] JLR 373.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.