Durkin and Howard v AG

JurisdictionJersey
CourtCourt of Appeal
JudgeSir John Nutting,J.P.C. Sumption,Sir Charles Mantell
Judgment Date11 January 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] JCA 2
Date11 January 2005

[2005] JCA 2

COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

Sir John Nutting, Q.C., President; J.P.C. Sumption, Esq., Q.C.; and The Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Mantell

Laurence Anthony Durkin
Jeremy Edwin Howard
and
The Attorney General

Advocate J. Bell for L.A. Durkin;

Advocate R. Juste for J.E. Howard.

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Authorities.

Rimmer & Ors v AG [2001] JLR 373.

Welsh v AG (4th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/72].

Finnegan v AG [2004] JRC 077.

Aramah [1983] 76 Cr. App. R. 190.

Aranguren [1994] 99 Cr. App. R. 347.

SG v McGuffie (1968) JJ 995.

Harrison v AG [2004] JCA 006.

Harrison v AG [2004] JCA 046.

Le Pavoux v AG [2003] JCA 127.

Rabet v AG (3rd November, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/214].

Snooks & Dowse v AG [2002] JLR 475.

R v Ward [1993] 96 Cr. App. R. 1.

R v Winston Brown [1995] 1 Cr. App. R. 191.

R v Keane [1994] 99 Cr. App. R. 1.

R v Craven [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. 12.

Benedetto v R [2003] 1 WLR 1545 PC.

Blackstone's Criminal Practice (2004: OUP) D.16.10–D.16.20.

Archbold (2004) 4–404o — 4–404q.

Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961; Articles 25, 26A.

R v Melvin and Dingle Unreported 20th December 1993.

Pringle v R (2003) UKPC 9 at 30.

R v Falconer-Atlee 58 Cr. App. R. 348.

Morgan and Schlandt v Attorney General (24th April 2001) Jersey Unreported (2001/88).

Hunt v Attorney General (2003) JCA 128.

R v Fawcett 5 Cr. App. R (S) 158 CA.

R v Pitson 56 Cr. App. R. 391.

Wright v Attorney General (12th July 1999) Jersey Unreported 1999/125.

Bruton v Attorney General (14th July 2000) Jersey Unreported 2000/136.

Bevan v Attorney General (2003) JCA 14.

Rayner v Attorney General (25 September 1996) Jersey Unreported CA.

A.G. v Durkin, Bevis, Howard and Hartley [2004] JRC 163.

Applications by both appellants for leave to appeal against conviction at a criminal assize on 18th August, 2004, following not guilty pleas and conviction on:

1 count of: Conspiracy to contravene Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (count 1).

Applications by both appellants for leave to appeal against total sentences of 13 years' imprisonment in respect of each appellant, made up as follows, and passed on 13th September, 2004, by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Appellants were remanded by the trial Judge on 18th August, 2004, on a guilty plea to all counts except count 1:

LAURENCE ANTHONY DURKIN

1 count of: Conspiracy to contravene Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (count 1): count 1, on which count a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment was passed.

6 counts of: Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1961:

Count 3 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

Count 5 (heroin): on which count no separate penalty was passed.

Count 7: (heroin): on which count no separate penalty was passed.

Count 9 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

Count 12: (cannabis resin): on which count a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

Count 15: (diazepam) on which count a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

2 counts of: Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1961:

Count 4 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

Count 8 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

3 counts 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 22 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

Count 23 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

Count 24 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

The Crown accepted not guilty pleas to counts 2, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16.

The application for leave to appeal placed directly before the plenary Court, without first being submitted to a Single Judge for consideration and determination.

JEREMY EDWIN HOWARD

1 count of: Conspiracy to contravene Article 61 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (count 1): count 1, on which count a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment was passed.

1 count of: Count 17, on which count a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

2 counts 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 22 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

Count 25 (heroin): on which count a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, concurrent, was passed.

The application for leave to appeal placed directly before the plenary Court, without first being submitted to a Single Judge for consideration and determination.

THE PRESIDENT:
THE APPLICATIONS
1

Between 16 and 18 August 2004 Laurence Durkin and Jeremy Howard were tried at a criminal assize. Sir Richard Tucker sitting as a Commissioner presided at the trial assisted by a Jury. The indictment consisted of a single count of conspiracy to import a kilo of heroin into Jersey. Both men were convicted and sentence was adjourned until 13 September 2004.

2

At an earlier hearing the applicants had pleaded guilty to other offences in the same indictment and on the adjourned date the Commissioner and Jurats convened to consider the sentences to be imposed for all the offences.

3

In respect of the count of conspiracy both applicants were sentenced to serve 13 years' imprisonment. In respect of three counts of importing heroin the applicant Durkin was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment concurrent and concurrent with the sentence passed on the conspiracy count. The applicant Howard was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment in respect of two similar offences of importation with the same concurrent orders.

4

Both men now apply to the Full Court for leave to appeal their convictions for conspiracy to supply heroin and their sentences of 13 years for this offence and the 4 year sentences for the offences of importing heroin.

5

For completeness it is necessary to add that the same indictment also charged the applicant Durkin with other offences to which he pleaded guilty including two counts of supplying heroin to an habitual user of the drug named Rodney Bevis, four counts of possessing heroin, one count of possessing cannabis resin and one count of possessing diazepam. For these offences he was sentenced to various amounts of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years, which period he was ordered to serve concurrently with the sentences of 13 years and 4 years respectively. No application is made for leave to appeal these sentences.

6

Similarly the applicant Howard pleaded guilty to the theft of a mobile telephone and was ordered to serve one month imprisonment concurrent with the other sentences. He makes no application in respect of that sentence.

7

We address first the applications by Advocate Bell for Durkin and Advocate Juste for Howard for leave to appeal the convictions on the conspiracy count.

THE EVIDENCE
8

The allegation of conspiracy consisted of three main areas of evidence, firstly summaries of transcripts of covertly recorded conversations between the two applicants from 20 th February to 2 nd April 2003, secondly evidence from Bevis who was charged in the same conspiracy, and thirdly evidence of answers given by both applicants when questioned by the police after their arrests on 29 th April 2003.

9

In essence the case of the Crown was that the conversations, confirmed by the evidence of Bevis, revealed an agreement by the two applicants to import heroin to Jersey through a third party. The Defence suggested that the conversations consisted of the musings and speculations of two heroin addicts and that Bevis had falsely implicated them.

10

During the relevant period the applicant Durkin lived at Flat 4, La Roserie, Bagot Road, St Saviour. The applicant Howard, who was living at an address in St Clement, was a regular visitor to Durkin's flat, as was (albeit on fewer occasions) the witness Bevis. The evidence disclosed that Durkin, who was unemployed during the period, was receiving regular sums of money from his mother and his brother totalling between £1,200 and £1,400: it was apparent that notwithstanding the receipt of these amounts he owed money to his landlord. The evidence also revealed that, during the same period, the applicant Howard had no job and no apparent means of financial support: shortly before his arrest he had applied for parish welfare relief.

11

Both men were admitted heroin addicts. The applicant Durkin told police in interview that since the beginning of 2003 he had been using heroin on a daily basis, but he insisted that the money supplied by his family in England was sufficient to enable him to make ends meet and to fund his drug habit. The applicant Howard also confirmed to police that he used heroin regularly, up to a gram per day if it was available and if he could afford to obtain it. He acknowledged that such an amount was priced at approximately £200 in Jersey, but that supplies on the mainland were more readily available and that a similar quantity could be purchased in England for only £30.

12

On 20 February 2003 the police installed a covert listening device in the flat at St Saviour's which enabled them to record conversations taking place within range of the device. Inevitably only a proportion of the resulting transcripts were relevant to the charge faced by the applicants and only the relevant portions were adduced in evidence at the trial.

13

The critical features of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • AG v Bhojwani
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 11 April 2008
    ...Defendant. Authorities Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. R v Melvin and Dingle 20th December 1993 unreported . Durkin and Howard v AG [2005] JCA 002 . R v Winston Brown [1995] 1 Cr. App. R. 191 CA . R v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Lee [1999] 2 All ER 727 DC . R v Early and ......
  • AG v Smith
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 6 April 2009
    ...Authorities Rimmer Lusk and Bade -v- AG [2001] JLR 373. AG -v- Hogan [2008] JRC 207. Andrews -v- AG [2006] JCA 099. Durkin -v- AG [2005] JCA 002. AG -v- Carter [2005] JRC 051. Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 1......
  • AG v Andrade and Ors
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 21 February 2006
    ...Advocate M. J. Haines for Andrews. Advocate D. Gilbert for Andrade. Advocate R. C. L. Juste for Swinburne. Authorities Durkin -v- AG [2005] JCA 002. AG -v- Carter, Allan and Hume [2005] JRC 051. Valler -v- AG [2002] JLR 383. Rimmer Lusk & Bade -v- AG [2001] JLR 373. Sentencing by the Superi......
  • Andrew v AG
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 14 July 2006
    ...Law 1999. Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978. Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373. AG v Carter, Allan & Hume [2005] JRC 051. Durkin and Howard v AG [2005] JCA 002. Wight v AG 1999/125. Application for leave to appeal by Darren Steven Andrews against a total sentence, passed by the Superior Number of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT