A JEWELLER serving more than seven years in prison for money laundering has had his attempt to overturn or reduce his sentence rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Darius Pearce, who formerly ran a Central Market jewellery store bearing his name, was convicted of three counts of money laundering in December 2020, after being arrested in connection with a criminal gang attempting to bring drugs into Jersey.
He was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison following a week-long trial in the Royal Court, which heard that he had accepted cash from members of the drug smuggling ring and used it to buy gold bullion in London, which he, or other members of the ring, later collected and sold for cash. In some cases, the gold was sold for less than half the price it had been bought for.
Seven others were also convicted in the Royal Court in relation to the attempt to bring almost £1 million of cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis into Jersey by yacht in 2019. They were sentenced to a combined 74 years in prison.
Pearce appealed against his conviction earlier this year, arguing there was no case to answer and that the sentence was too severe for the offences for which he was convicted. He represented himself at the original trial and sentencing, but later tried to have his appeal adjourned, as the matters were ‘too complex’ and he needed legal counsel.
However, the adjournment was denied, as Advocate Jeremy Garrood had been made available to him as an adviser.
In arguing his appeal against conviction, Pearce claimed there was no case to answer as he had never been in possession of the money handed to him in his shop on three dates – 13 March 2019, 24 April 2019 and 1 May 2019.
But the Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting it was ‘founded on an interpretation of the law so strained as to be almost incomprehensible’.
‘It was entirely open to the Jurats to find that by converting the cash into gold bullion and the proceeds of its sale in the UK, the Appellant was (for example) making easier the use or control of the criminal property by members of the criminal enterprise,’ the court judgment said. ‘That was, indeed, precisely the purpose of the arrangement as alleged.’
The court also rejected the contention that Pearce did not know he was committing a crime when purchasing the gold bullion for the drug smugglers.
The Court of Appeal – consisting of the Bailiff Timothy Le Cocq, James McNeill and Lord Anderson – dismissed Pearce’s arguments that he had lacked the benefits of counsel, noting that he repeatedly chosen to represent himself and dismissed advocates assigned by legal aid.
While Pearce contended his sentence was excessive, the Court of Appeal found the appropriate starting point for the offences was eight years and Pearce had little mitigation, having been unco-operative with the police and the court and bringing many ‘vexatious’ applications.
Pearce was denied leave to appeal against the sentence.
