The Attorney General v Carl James Turney

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] JRC 175
• Date: 30 September 2016

[2016] JRC 175

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Liston and Thomas

The Attorney General

and

Carl James Turney

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

Authorities

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001.

AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 .

AG v Bhojwani [2010] JRC 116 .

AG v Michel [2007] JRC 120

AG v Cleaver [2016] JRC 080 .

AG v Bhojwani [2010] JLR N 34 .

AG v McFeat, Smyth and Howard [2013] (2) JLR N 11 .

AG v McFeat, Smyth and Howard [2013] JRC 137 .

AG v Adam [2015] JRC 215 .

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.

Inferior Number Sentencing — attempting to remove criminal property from Jersey, contrary to Article 31(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

1 count of: Attempting to remove criminal property from Jersey, contrary to Article 31(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age : 29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant was stopped when boarding the ferry to the UK. When asked he admitted to customs officers that a large amount of cash was concealed in his vehicle. He told officers where to look and they located £42,000 cash in the passenger door, mostly Jersey notes. The defendant told officers he was approached by a male in the UK and was motivated by a financial reward of £1,000 upon his return to the UK.

Details of Mitigation:

Co-operative with investigation, early admissions, remorse, the Court noted that the defendant had significant support from his family.

Previous Convictions:

Several previous convictions although none are directly relevant to the current offending.

Conclusions:

Count 1: 2 years' imprisonment, suspended for a period of 2 years.

Forfeiture in the sum of £42,000 sought.

Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £700.

No Confiscation Order sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court stated it was an extremely serious offence and adopted the principles set out in AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 146.

The Court also held that this case was exceptional and that in normal circumstances a significant prison sentence in excess of 2 years' imprisonment. In this case the Court found the defendant's medical and psychological problems were exceptional.

Count 1: 2 years' imprisonment, suspended for a period of 2 years.

Forfeiture in the sum of £42,000 ordered under Article 2 of the Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders)(Jersey) Law 2001.

Declaration of benefit in the sum of £700.

No Confiscation Order made.

Bailiff

THE

1 Mr Turney, you are here to be sentenced on one count of attempting to remove criminal property from the Island, contrary to Article 31 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 in that you had concealed in the door panel of a sliver Mercedes the sum of £42,000 in cash. You suspected or knew that this represented the proceeds of drug trafficking, and it is right that I say at the outset that this is an extremely serious offence.

2 The facts behind the offence were these. You were travelling alone; on being stopped you were spoken to by customs officers, the search of the vehicle was completed, there was no sign of any controlled drugs but later on when you were on the way back you were asked if you were carrying anything and the customs officers were told that you were carrying a large amount of cash which could be found within the rear left passenger door. £42,000 had been concealed, as I said. You had been approached by a man who knew you came to Jersey frequently. He had offered to pay you £1000 if you collected some cash and £500 to pay for your travel and accommodation and you told customs officers that you were more afraid of the male in the UK than of what was going to happen to you as a result of this offending.

3 The Court is invited by the Crown to declare benefit that you have made in the sum of £700, which we do. We do not make a confiscation order because you appear to have no assets of your own, but we do make an order for forfeiture of the £42,000 seized from you under Article 2 of the Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001.

4 Mr Turney, you have parents who have supported you through a period of gambling addiction, and you have a wife and two children. What you have done has imperilled three generations of your family. It is quite obvious to this Court that you urgently need to attend Gamblers Anonymous or get some similar help from elsewhere.

5 It was said to us by Counsel that there have been few cases involving the laundering of drug trafficking proceeds, but the Court proceeds today on the basis of the Superior Number decision of this Court in the case of AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165. Judgment was handed down on 15 ^th September.

6 In that case it was made perfectly clear that there was a change in sentencing policy and that the cases of AG v Michel [2007] JRC 120 and AG v Bhojwani [2007] JRC 120 which have been referred to should no longer be regarded as setting the standard for sentencing in this Court. I quote some of the paragraphs from the Court's judgment in the case of Goodwin.

“4. Money laundering is a serious offence which, by virtue of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 (“the Law”), carries a potential sentence of 14 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine. This Court has previously had regard to the English authority of R v Monfries [2004] 2 Cr. App. R.(S) 3 , in which the English Court of Appeal set out a number of principles:-

...