The Attorney General v Annie Cleaver

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 08 April 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] JRC 80
• Date: 08 April 2016

[2016] JRC 80

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Nicolle and Ronge

The Attorney General

and

Annie Cleaver

E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate N. MacDonald for the Defendant.

Authorities

AG -v- Bhojwani [2010] JLR N 34.

AG -v- Bhojwani [2010] JRC 116.

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

AG -v- McFeat [2013] JRC 137.

AG -v- Adam [2015] JRC 215.

Inferior Number Sentencing — removing criminal property from Jersey — acquiring and possession of criminal property.

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

2 counts of: Removing criminal property from Jersey, contrary to Article 31(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 11 and 12).

1 count of: Entering into an arrangement to acquire, use, possess or control criminal property on behalf of another, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 13).

Age : 28.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence :

The defendant, who lived in Liverpool, travelled to Jersey on three separate occasions in order to collect cash and deliver it to contacts in Liverpool. The first two journeys were successfully completed, on the third she was arrested before she collected the cash.

Count 11 relates to a trip on 18 ^th September, 2016. The defendant travelled to Jersey accompanied by an associate. She had been asked to accompany the associate to Jersey in order to collect cash, and had been told that the money was owed to an acquaintance of the associate. The defendant did not know that the money represented the proceeds of drug trafficking, but suspected that it was connected to, or was the proceeds of, crime. She thought it may have been stolen. The following day, the defendant and the associate went to the address of one of the defendant's co-accused. The defendant waited outside while the associate entered the flat and collected £5,800. The associate and the defendant each took half of the money and travelled back to Liverpool together. In return for undertaking this journey, the defendant received £180, and her flight back to Liverpool was paid for out of the funds collected.

Count 12 relates to a trip on 1 ^st October, 2015. The defendant travelled by plane from Liverpool to Jersey, this time alone. The defendant knew she was to collect money, but once again was not told from where the money had come, nor did she ask. She did, however, suspect that it was connected to, or the proceeds of, crime. The defendant went again to the flat of one of her co-accused. Once there, she received £4,000 from a co-accused at the front door. The next day (2 ^nd October, 2015), the defendant returned to Liverpool with the money. As payment, the defendant received £50 per £1,000 collected and a further £200, therefore making a total of £400.

Count 13 relates to 8 ^th October, 2015, when the defendant flew to Jersey from Liverpool. On this occasion she travelled with a friend. The defendant came to Jersey with the intention of collecting cash and returning with it to Liverpool. She was again suspicious of the provenance of the cash, but was motivated to undertake the journey by the promise of payment. The defendant and her friend made their way to the address of a co-accused where plain clothes police officers were in the process of undertaking a search of the flat. Not realising that he was a police officer, the defendant told Dc McGranahan that she was looking for ‘Scobe’ (a nickname of one of her co-accused) but could not provide a reason. She and her friend were arrested and cautioned, and was told that one of her co-accused had been arrested with a quantity of heroin. The defendant initially claimed that she was in the Island networking for her woven basket filling business but very soon afterwards admitted that she was at the flat to collect money, and that she had done so before.

The defendant was initially vague in interview but was eventually completely cooperative.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown: Guilty plea, cooperative with the police, low risk of reoffending, mother to three young children.

The Defence: time spent on remand not taken into account in Crown's conclusions, out of character, unaware that money related to drug trafficking.

Previous Convictions:

One relevant previous conviction for production of cannabis.

Conclusions:

The Crown was minded to move for a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. However, the defendant had served six months' on remand, the equivalent of a sentence of approximately nine months' imprisonment. She has no connection to the Island, and is the mother of three young children. It was submitted that little is to be...