2000/42
3 pages
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi
Division)
6th
March, 2000.
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and
Jurats
de
Veulle, Le Ruez, Rumfitt, Potter, Quérée,
Le
Brocq, Le Breton, and Allo.
The Attorney General
-v-
Michael Thomas Kenward.
Sentencing by the
Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the
Inferior Number on 2nd December, 1999, following a guilty plea
entered on 29th October to:
1
count of: being
knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the importation of a
controlled drug, contrary to Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise
(General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972:
Count
1: heroin.
Age: 59
Plea: Guilty
Details
of Offence:
Defendant arrived in Jersey
off evening flight from Heathrow.
Drugs detector dog indicated strong interest in seat 17A on the
aircraft. Defendant, who had been
stopped by Customs officer, asked to confirm he sat in seat 17A. Said he had nothing to declare and could
not explain. Searched. Found to be carrying heroin strapped to
his genitals. Also carrying heroin
in hollowed out heels of the shoes he was wearing and a second pair in his
luggage. Total amount 307.06 grams between 75% and 81% purity
by weight worth £92,118 at
street level if sold in score bags.
Highest purity by weight of heroin since records began - police national
average 38.8%. Also found in
possession of £1,040.00 in cash.
Defendant co-operative with interviewing officers. Defendant had lived last 4 years in
Thailand. Had exhausted his
retirement savings. Said he had
been approached by a man in Thailand who had befriended him. The man had paid defendant’s
flight to London to visit his pregnant daughter. Defendant became man’s debtor. Man offered defendant chance to clear
debt and earn money. Defendant and
man flew to London wearing shoes with heels hollowed out and filled with
polystyrene. In London, heroin
substituted in heels and additional heroin strapped around defendant’s
genitals. Defendant said he
didn’t know it was heroin but knew it was something illegal because of
the way he was asked to hide it. He
said he needed the money.
Details
of Mitigation:
Defendant will be 60 in
August 2000. No previous
convictions whatsoever. Typical
“mule”: naïve and in debt. Duped into trafficking by a man who
befriended him. Mere courier. Was as co-operative as he could be: gave
all the information which was within his knowledge. Named his supplier, and instructed that
this fact should be made known in open court. Health problems: benign tumour under
ribs, arthritis. Imprisonment would
be unpleasant, having named his supplier.
By this conviction, he had wrecked a previously exemplary life and most
of his family had disowned him. Extreme
remorse (letter read out from defendant to Court).
Previous
Convictions: None
Conclusions:
Pre-sentencing - confiscation
order in sum of £1,040.00 to be paid in accordance with Article 14A of
the 1988 Law as amended into the Drug Trafficking Confiscation’s
Fund. Starting point 14
years’ imprisonment less 2 years for guilty plea. Further reduction of 2 years for
co-operation, age, character and 3 years for naming his supplier and doing so
in open Court. Total of 7
years’ imprisonment. Forfeiture
and destruction of drugs.
Sentence
& Observations of Court:
Starting point correct. Crown had if anything been generous re
discount for age and co-operation.
Naming of supplier and in open Court merits further reduction - 4 years. 6 years’ imprisonment in all:
forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Mrs.
S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate
Advocate
N.J. Chapman for the Accused.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: The Court will make a Confiscation Order in the sum of £1,040
and will deliver its reasons for arriving at that conclusion in due course.
[The
Court then heard further submissions from Counsel]
In considering the starting point for sentencing in
this case we have had regard to the Court of Appeal decision in Campbell
& Others -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.. This was a substantial quantity of
heroin and we agree with the Crown Advocate that 14 years’ imprisonment
is the appropriate starting point.
The misery which would have resulted if this quantity of heroin had
reached the streets is substantial.
On
the other side of the coin, Kenward is a first offender who has blighted his
life by this act of folly. We think
that the Crown Advocate has made the appropriate (if slightly generous)
deductions for the mitigating factors of age and co-operation. There remains the naming of the supplier
and the acknowledgement in open court that he has done so. Much of the drug trafficking trade rests
upon a basis of fear and intimidation.
It is in the public interest that those who are brought to justice
should be encouraged to give information and to be seen to be giving
information about suppliers and those higher up the chain. In the judgment of the Court it is worth
a substantial discount and we propose to reduce the sentence which would
otherwise have been imposed by 4 years for that factor alone.
Kenward,
stand up please. The sentence of
the Court is that you will go to prison for a total of 6 years’ for the
offence to which you have pleaded guilty.
The Court orders the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
A.G. -v- Le Tarouilly (2nd December, 1996) Jersey
Unreported.
A.G. -v- Schorah & Wright (22nd February, 1999)
Jersey Unreported.
A.G. -v- Lunt (22nd June, 1998) Jersey Unreported.
A.G. -v- Dowse (20th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported.
Campbell & Others -v- A.G. (1995) JLR 136 CofA.
A.G. -v- Bray (8th November, 1999) Jersey Unreported.
Bray -v- A.G. (27th January, 2000) Jersey Unreported.