AG -v- Neagle [2012] JRC 166 (20 September 2012)

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The defendant stands to be sentenced for being knowingly concerned in the supply of 48 grams of adulterated cocaine over a period of two weeks' (Count 1), and for possessing a further 18 grams with intent to supply (Count 2). There is a further Count 4 in relation to a small quantity of cocaine found in his possession for personal purposes. 2. If the 18 grams of cocaine found in his possession had been bulked up by the defendant in the same way as the 48 grams he could have produced 46 grams of adulterated cocaine. The total amount of cocaine involved therefore is between 66 grams and 94 grams depending on whether the Court takes into account the intended adulteration of the seized amount. 3. Count 1, which is under Article 5c of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 is an offence sui generis and not therefore comprehended within the trafficking guidelines as confirmed in the case of AG-v-Antunes, Saraiva & Vivieros [2003] JLR 144 but given the defendant's account of his involvement in the supply that he has admitted to, the Crown submits that it is appropriate to have regard to the Rimmer guidelines for that offence. Counsel for the Defence agrees that that is the right approach as do we. 4. The Rimmer guideline provides a starting point of between 9 and 11 years for cocaine weighing between 50 and 100 grams. 66 grams therefore falls within the lower end of that range and 94 at the higher end. The Crown seeks a starting point of 10 years. 5. Whether or not the defendant would have adulterated the cocaine found in his possession is, in our view, a matter of speculation and we think that the fair approach is to use the lower figure of 66 grams which would give rise to a starting point of 9 years as suggested by the Defence. 6. Taking into account what the Crown accepts as the considerable mitigation available to the defendant, the Crown sees no reason to part from the Court's strict policy in relation to drug trafficking offences and move for a sentence of 4½ years' imprisonment in total. 7. In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty. He has been very cooperative with the Authorities in particular in writing his own Indictment in relation to Count 1. He is to be treated as a man of good character, in particular there are no previous convictions for drug related offences, and he has been assessed by the Probation Department at a low risk of reoffending. He has until now led a pro-social lifestyle and has a good work record. He got involved in drug trafficking, he has informed us, because he was struggling financially and he now deeply regrets his actions, remorse which we accept is genuine. 8. He has been heavily involved in the martial arts in the Island, being a black belt in both Judo and Ju jitsu and he regularly taught both adults and children in those sports, and indeed he represented Jersey in the Island Games. He is supported by his former wife who we believe may be in Court, and his two adult children and he has very good references which we have considered. He has written us a letter of remorse and we note that he has for some time now been suffering from depression. 9. However, notwithstanding all of this mitigation, there is no mistaking the fact that the defendant embarked upon a commercial venture cutting and adulterating cocaine for profit, with the police finding the paraphernalia associated with such an undertaking including digital scales, dealer lists, a mobile with numerous Sim cards and zip-seal bags. The policy of the Court laid down in Campbell is to impose strong punishments to mark the particularly anti-social nature of drug trafficking. We think there is very substantial mitigation for the defendant but at the end of the day, after considerable consideration, you can see how long we have been discussing the matter, we find that there is nothing exceptional which would permit us to depart from the clear policy of the Court that those who involve themselves in this evil trade will face condign punishment. 10. However, because of the powerful mitigation available to the defendant, in particular the fact that he wrote his own Indictment in relation to Count 1, we are going to reduce the conclusions. 11. In relation to Count 1 you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, in relation to Count 2 ; 2½ years' imprisonment, in relation to Count 4; 2 months' imprisonment, all to run concurrent with each other which makes a total of 3 years' imprisonment. 12. We order the confiscation and destruction of the drugs and the paraphernalia seized. 13. Because the recording was not working earlier, we will reiterate the order that we made, namely that we declare the defendant to have benefitted from drug trafficking to the tune of £3,600 and made a Confiscation Order in the sum of £630. Authorities AG-v-Antunes, Saraiva & Vivieros [2003] JLR 144 . Rimmer, Lusk & Bade-v-AG [2001] JLR 373 . Campbell, Molloy and Mackenzie-v-AG [1995] JLR 136 . Page Last Updated: 13 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII