Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Crim 1519
Case No: 2012/0817/A5 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2(A 2LL 

Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2012
 
B e f o r e:
 
LORD JUSTICE LAWS	 

MR JUSTICE MITTING  
 
MR JUSTICE EDWARDS‑STUART 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
R E G I N A 
v 

ANDRE CRUIKSHANK
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr A Bell appeared on behalf of the Appellant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE MITTING:  On 26th January 2012 at Croydon Crown Court the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of fraudulent evasion of the prohibition contrary to section 170(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and was sentenced on the same date.  
2.	On 1st October he had arrived at Heathrow Airport on a flight from St. Lucia.  In his baggage, which as it happened including a newly purchased bag, was found 10 coffee bags and nine bottles of shampoo and body wash, all of which contained cocaine.  The total quantity of cocaine at 100% purity was 5.79 kilograms, a significant quantity.  
3.	He was interviewed about these items and maintained that he had been asked by someone in St. Lucia, whom he recognised from the United Kingdom, to bring back a number of items as souvenirs.  
4.	Although he pleaded guilty on the day on which he was sentenced, it is correct to observe that on the first day after the case was transferred to the Crown Court (his first appearance at the Crown Court) he indicated a willingness to plead guilty to the offence charged which was only not entered because the Crown were not then ready to proceed. 
5.	The sentence imposed upon him was nine years and four months' imprisonment with credit being given for 115 days spent on remand.  In addition, a Travel Restriction Order was made under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for five years after release from the custodial part of that sentence.  
6.	In her sentencing remarks the judge made the following observations:  
"I have seen all the papers in this case.  In my view there is nothing that really affects the sentencing, but what I would say however is that from what I have seen I consider that the best course of action is to give you full credit for your plea; in other words as if you had made it abundantly clear in interview that you were admitting your involvement instead of the denial that went on for some time.  I have seen the interview and I have read it.  Therefore you will get a full one‑third discount in respect of your sentence."
7.	We have taken into account the same circumstances as did the judge and we agree with her comments.  The starting point which she took of 14 years and upwards was plainly correct in the light of long established authority.  The discount which she gave in all the circumstances was the most that could be justified.
8.	In addition to appealing against the length of the term of imprisonment, the appellant also appeals against the Travel Restriction Order.  There was jurisdiction to impose it because he was convicted of a drug trafficking offence.  His passport showed that he was a frequent traveller to and from the Caribbean, albeit not always to St. Lucia.  He had parents in Jamaica and a 16‑year‑old son also in Jamaica.  He had a family in the United Kingdom as well.  
9.	Plainly the effect of a Travel Restriction Order will be to prevent him from visiting his parents in Jamaica and his son on his release from prison.  However, the frequency of his travel to and from the Caribbean and the nature of the offence of which he was convicted, demonstrates in our view that the judge was clearly right to impose a travel restriction order.  In those circumstances, its length, five years, cannot be considered in the least excessive.  
10.	For those reasons, we are satisfied that the sentences imposed were fully justified and dismiss this appeal.