Superior Number Sentencing - drugs - importation - Class A

[2022]JRC119

Royal Court

(Samedi)

30 May 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

Janice Catherine Mawdsley

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Age:  42. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The Defendant arrived in Jersey on 16^th April 2022 on a flight from Liverpool.  Her only luggage was a small rucksack.  As she passed through the baggage reclaim area, the Defendant was stopped by Customs Officers, who searched her rucksack.  Nothing of interest was found, and the Defendant said that she had nothing to declare.  The Defendant was arrested the same day at a hotel on suspicion of being knowingly concerned in the importation of controlled drugs and was cautioned.  The Defendant showed the arresting officer her handbag which contained two paper bags containing cling film wrapped packages.

The States Analyst has confirmed the drugs to be 188.16 grams of cocaine.  26.79 grams with a purity of 76 per cent, 55.51 grams with a purity of 66 per cent and 105.86 grams with a purity of 81 per cent.  6.33 grams of ketamine was also within the packages.

Details of Mitigation:

Benefit of early guilty plea, although Crown submitted that in the circumstances the guilty plea was all but inevitable.  No previous drug convictions.  Defendant also had personal mitigation highlighted in the psychological report and the Pre-Sentence Report

Defendant named individuals involved in organising the importation and is willing to have it stated in open court. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered.

Ms L. B. Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J-A. C. Dix for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced today for your importation of approximately 188 grams of cocaine for onward supply to local distributors.  You arrived in the island on 16^th April, 2022, on a flight from Liverpool and said when asked at customs that you had nothing to declare.  You said that you would be staying at a local hotel and at 11:30am that morning an officer who was on duty at the hotel arrested you on suspicion of being knowingly concerned in the importation of a controlled drug.  You indicated to the officer that there were drugs in your handbag. 

2.        The packages seized as a result confirmed that there were some 188.16 grams of cocaine of varying levels of purity.  You informed officers in interview that your ex-boyfriend had asked you to carry the drugs over and you had said that you did not feel like you had an option.  The drugs had been concealed internally.  You named the ex-boyfriend and contact in Liverpool.  You claim that you have been in an abusive relationship and you were expecting the importation to be in return for money that would enable you to be free of your ex-boyfriend.

3.        The Crown has cited to use the correct guideline case of Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 in which the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for the trafficking of Class A controlled drugs in powder form.  The guidelines indicate a starting point of between 10 and 13 years’ imprisonment for cases involving 100 to 250 grams of drugs.  The position of an offender within the bands is to be determined by reference not only to the weight but the role and involvement of the offender as principal factors.  The value of the drugs, whilst relevant, being of less significance.  It is also clear that we should have regard to the purity of the drugs in considering starting point and in this case 26.79 grams of the cocaine had a purity of 76% which is a high purity.  55.51 grams had a purity of 66% and 105.86 grams had a purity of 81% which is obviously another high level of purity.  The overall purity we are advised is significantly higher, so we are informed, than much of the cocaine which that comes before the Court and that, the Crown argues, should be considered in connection with the assessment of the starting point.

4.        You imported a commercial quantity with a street value of between £30,000 and £40,000 and you were then going to supply the drugs to a local contact.  It would then have been adulterated almost certainly in the view of the drugs expert and would have then had a value of between £45,000 and £70,000 at street level.  You were a courier, but as this Court has often said, couriers play an important part – a vital role in bringing drugs into the island. 

5.        You have the benefit of an early guilty plea and the Crown argues that the guilty plea was all but inevitable.  We do not agree with this.  We think that a full discount is justified for the guilty plea for the reasons advanced by your counsel in mitigation.  You have no previous drugs convictions and you were co-operative with the investigation.  You are content to have the fact that you named the individuals involved in the importation stated in open court and that as the Crown has acknowledged is an important factor and counts as significant mitigation.  Co-operation to that significant extent is, as the Crown has said, not only encouraged but to be rewarded.

6.        The Crown has put before us the case of AG v Carragher [2020] JRC 156 in which I said:-

“The defence has referred us to a number of extracts from Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey and in particular we refer to this section in which the learned author quotes from the case of Miah and Ors [2007] JRC 113 in the following terms:

“9.      The additional factor which we have, however, to take into consideration is that the defendant has given valuable information to the police as to the criminal activities of others, and furthermore he has instructed his counsel to acknowledge that co-operation in open court.  As we have said on many occasions it is the policy of this Court to encourage criminals to give information about the activities of other criminals.  The drug trafficking trade is founded upon fear, violence and intimidation and it is very much in the public interest that those higher up the chain should be aware that co-operation with the authorities is not only encouraged but rewarded.  We propose to reduce the sentence which would otherwise have been appropriate for this serious offence by 4 years.

And then, further down, in the case of AG v Trinidade 2000/141 the learned author cites:-

“One of the reasons for the policy not only to reward the provision of information so that other people may be caught but to encourage others to come forward and provide information in the knowledge that their sentence will be much lower than it would otherwise have been.”

7.        In this case we place considerable emphasis on the fact that you have not only named individuals involved in drug criminality but have allowed the fact that you did so to be referred to in open court.  In our view this justifies a discount in the sentence moved for by the Crown and that, taken together with the other mitigation available, allows us to impose the sentence in the following terms:”

7.        We have, of course, had regard to the pre-sentencing report in your case and having taken this into account in all its aspects we note you are assessed at being at low risk of reconviction and you appear to take responsibility for your offending.  We have also looked carefully at the psychological report, in particular the parts referred to us directly by your counsel and we take into account the challenges that you have faced in the past and that you continue to face.  We note the other mitigation available to you.  We have read with care your letter of remorse which we accept to be entirely genuine and we have read carefully the letters of reference from members of your family and your friends and others who know you and they clearly show a very different picture than that which might otherwise appear to be case in this Court and we accept that. 

8.        Although the mitigation in your case is considerable you were knowingly involved in the importation of a commercial quantity of cocaine with a very substantial street value.  There is no basis for us to depart from the usual sentencing policy of this court with regard to the trafficking of Class A drugs and because of the particular purity of the drugs we think the Crown has moved for an appropriate starting point which is 12 years.  Given what we believe to be the correct discount for your guilty pleas, your cooperation, previous good character, and other mitigation that we have mentioned and as disclosed in all of the documents in this case, in particular naming the individuals that you have named and referring to that in open court, we believe that a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment is appropriate and that is the sentence that we impose.

9.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized in this case including the ketamine.

10.      We authorise and direct that the psychological reports shall be provided to the prison authorities. 

Authorities

Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. 

AG v Carragher [2020] JRC 156.