DPP v Bedjeti [2025] VCC 1275

1. The offence of cultivation of a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity is an inherently serious offence. Not only is it punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years, but Parliament has designated it as a Category 2 offence. That means you must receive a custodial sentence, other than a term of imprisonment in combination with a community correction order. To avoid that kind of sentence, you would need to satisfy the court that a special reason exists.[1]
2. The Court of Appeal has consistently stated that the sentencing regime for drug offences is quantity based and while the quantity involved is not determinative of the court's assessment of the objective gravity of the offence, it will always be of importance. All things being equal, cases involving larger quantities attract higher penalties and reflect greater seriousness. Given the societal harm caused by drug use and the significant profits from illicit supply, general deterrence is a very important factor in sentencing for drug offences. Sentences are intended to deter both the offender and others from engaging in similar conduct.
3. There are other important indicators of offence seriousness in relation to the commercial cultivation of cannabis. The more serious examples of this offence involve sophisticated, expensive and elaborate hydroponic set-ups. Usually, offenders have bypassed electricity and often employ others to tend the crop on a day-to-day basis. In such cases, it is very clear that the offending is motivated solely by financial gain. Duration and the role played by the offender in the offending enterprise are significant considerations. Those who are principal offenders who have made significant profit or stand to make significant profit face lengthy terms of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has cautioned sentencing courts to not obscure the actual substance of the offender's role, rather they should consider the tasks performed and level of involvement of each individual offender.[2]
4. The prosecutor, Mr Tamburro, submitted that the quantity of drugs cultivated in your case, involved a total of 35 plants together with dried cannabis that weighed a total of 112.3 kilograms. This equates to 4.49 times the commercial threshold by weight and a third of the commercial threshold by number of plants. Mr Tamburro submitted yours was a sophisticated hydroponic set-up with two rooms in the house and the granny flat used to cultivate cannabis. An electrical bypass was in place to steal electricity required for the plants to mature indoors, thereby increasing the profitability of the illicit enterprise and concealing it from detection. Your offending spanned 43 days and occurred whilst you were subject of a community correction order.
5. Your counsel, Mr Barker, submitted that your risk of detection was high given the cultivation occurred at your home address and you were the only person present. Further, you had not set up the enterprise, rather you had welcomed the set-up in exchange for some financial reward. However, the risk you undertook was greater than the financial gain you expected to receive. Your motivation was at least partially to satisfy your own personal use.
6. Mr Barker submitted your offending occurred at a time when you had separated from your wife and children, your tyre business was struggling, you had suffered a significant workplace injury to your hand, and you had developed a dependency on cannabis. Your counsel did not submit that an exception to the Category 2 regime existed in your case.
7. I accept that your offending involved 112 kilograms cannabis which is 4.49 times the commercial threshold and less than half of a large commercial quantity. I find, consistent with your record of interview, that you had a somewhat limited role in the offending and that you did not have a proprietary interest in the cannabis itself. However, I do consider your role to be an important one, albeit that it persisted for a relatively limited duration. You provided the premises for the enterprise. You followed instruction, tending and watering the plants. As such I consider you were akin to a trusted employee. The hydroponic set-up was sophisticated, and considerable damage had been caused to your premises. Again, consistent with your record of interview, I find that you were not involved in the actual set-up of the enterprise. I accept that your motivation was both to feed your own addiction and to receive a relatively modest profit.
8. You have also pleaded guilty to the possession of 1.62kg of dried cannabis at your workplace, a total of $23,809 cash being proceeds of crime and that you handled stolen heavy machinery of considerable value. In all the circumstances, I consider your offending to be serious and aggravated by the fact that you were subject of a community correction order at the time.

1. You were born in May 1984 in Bitola, North Macedonia. You were 37 at the time of the offending and you are 41 now.
2. You have three siblings who still reside in North Macedonia with your parents and your parents are both now retired. Your parents previously ran an excavation and civil construction company. You still have a very good relationship with your parents and speak to them most days.
3. You completed the equivalent of Year 11 in Bitola before entering the workforce where you commenced an apprenticeship as an automotive electrician. You did this for three years but did not complete it.
4. When you were 19 you were introduced to a family friend, Selma, through your aunt. You eventually married Selma in 2003 when you were 19 years old. Her family was Macedonian; however, she was born in Australia and was an Australian citizen.
5. You left the apprenticeship and worked for your family business for around two years before moving to Australia with Selma when you were 20 years old. After arriving in Australia, you gained employment in a mechanic and tyre shop. You worked there for around 10 years. You eventually opened your own business with a colleague. You opened the business in 2015. Your partnership did not go smoothly, and the business struggled financially. This was compounded when the pandemic started. You also suffered an injury while at work in 2022 which required surgery.
6. In 2021 during COVID, you separated from your ex-wife, Selma, with whom you have three children aged 11, 17 and 19. You did not see her or your children for many months following the separation. Coupled with the lack of social connections that everyone suffered during the pandemic, you experienced depression and extremely low mood.
7. It was in this context that you started heavily using drugs, mostly alcohol and cannabis to medicate your mental health issues as well as the pain from multiple injuries you had suffered previously at work. You were using drugs right up until your offending.
8. You were remanded in custody after your arrest on 11 May 2022 until you were granted bail on 26 May 2022. Since being bailed, you have continued to run a tyre business which you own alone. Your son also works with you. You initially used this income to pay for the mortgage on your home where the offending occurred. This property is subject of automatic forfeiture, and you have now ceased to pay the mortgage.
9. By your account, you have continued to use drugs, including developing a methylamphetamine addiction more recently to deal with the stress of court proceedings and potential sentence in your future, which could also bring the potential for deportation. You report continued use of cannabis and methylamphetamine as well as binging on alcohol. I accept that you have commenced rehabilitation as you indicated to the assessor in the Corrections pre-sentence report.

1. Your plea of guilty could not be regarded as early. However, you have been engaged in proceedings to resolve this matter since committal mention. There were six hearings before a committal mention was finally listed and only the informant was cross-examined. You then participated in a case assessment hearing immediately after the matter was transferred to the County Court, followed by a sentence indication.
2. Mr Barker submitted that while your plea of guilty was not early, it is also not late, and it has utilitarian value in that the expense and time of a trial has been avoided. I accept this submission and have given you a significant discount for your plea of guilty.

1. Given the seriousness of your offending, you now face the reality of a lengthy gaol term. You are a permanent resident of Australia, but you are a non-citizen. A sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more will trigger the mandatory cancellation provision of the Migration Act and place you at risk of deportation.[3] If this occurs, it is likely that you will be refused a visa and deported. There is an appeal process which would likely require expensive and lengthy litigation, and which could see you detained in immigration detention whilst such litigation proceeds.
2. Your counsel, Mr Barker, submitted that the risk of deportation was relevant to your sentencing in two ways. Firstly, it renders imprisonment more onerous because you face the prospect of deportation. Secondly, deportation, should it occur, would constitute as additional, extra-curial punishment because it destroys the opportunity for you to settle permanently in this country.[4]
3. With respect to the first limb, Mr Barker submitted that when sentenced to imprisonment, the prospect of deportation would weigh on you for the entire period until the sentence is complete. This hardship is increased by the fact that your loss of opportunity to settle where your family resides would be harsh. You are highly anxious about the prospect of being deported. There is a correlation between how devastating the deportation would be and the onerousness of your period of imprisonment.
4. With respect to the second limb, Mr Barker submitted that, should you be deported, you would lose the opportunity to settle in the only country you have called home as an adult, and that this is a substantial additional punishment.
5. I accept that the uncertainty and real risk of deportation will make the time you serve in gaol more onerous. I also accept that deportation should it occur will constitute an additional punishment because it would destroy the opportunity for you to settle permanently in this country. The courts have recognised that the impact of deportation may vary dependent upon the offender's circumstances. In your case, you have built a life in this country over the past 20 years. You have three children, who you see regularly and support financially. You have established a relatively successful business and have been a contributing member of the Australian community.
6. Although I accept such consequences in mitigation, the cancellation of your visa and any consequent deportation are not punishment for your offending and cannot be treated as such. These factors are relevant considerations however the sentence I impose must still reflect the nature and gravity of the offending before the court. Such consequences cannot replace or stand as proxy for the imposition of an otherwise appropriate sentence reflecting the nature and gravity of the offending before the court.[5]

1. Your applications for a sentence indication hearing then a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order were both legitimate pathways to resolve this matter and both added to the delayed resolution of this matter. I accept that such applications were likely costly and brought disappointment as you were not ultimately successful. However, in my view, they offer little if any mitigation in the sentencing synthesis. For completeness, I do not accept that pursuit of a Drug Court order is in any way like the sentencing conversation in Koori Court as I understood the submission of your counsel. Such a submission grossly undervalues the cultural significance of the Koori Court process.
2. Mr Barker otherwise relied on the mitigatory effect of delay in your case. Delay is an important factor that can be considered by a sentencing court in two ways. The first concerns unfairness to the offender in that a charge has been hanging over their head and has caused them anxiety, and the second limb concerns whether during the period of delay the offender has made progress towards rehabilitation.
3. Your plea was heard three years and three months after the commission of your offending. Mr Barker submitted that this delay was relevant to the sentencing exercise both because the prospect of gaol and deportation has been hanging over your head for a lengthy period and because of your progress towards reform.
4. Since being bailed for this offending, you have reoffended and been dealt with at Heidelberg Magistrates' Court in both October and December 2024. In one instance you were fined for exceeding .05, refusing a breath test and unlicensed driving. The other matter related to possession of drugs, dealing with proceeds of crime and possession of an unregistered handgun. For this offending you were sentenced to nine days imprisonment and that is the time you had served in pre-sentence detention.
5. Apart from this further offending, you have continued to run your business and provide for your family. You have worked hard to make your business profitable despite challenges you faced during COVID and while on remand. Mr Barker submitted that your ability to run a business and the extent to which you are a hard worker are protective factors that demonstrate your capacity for rehabilitation. Further, you have engaged with CISP and in therapy with Dr Grech for varying periods during this time.
6. In my assessment, you are clearly a very hard worker. Each of the testimonials tendered on your behalf attests to this fact. Mr Tofts in particular spoke of your unparalleled work ethic and your ability to perform a very challenging job. Others spoke of your love and dedication to your family. Whilst I accept that there has been a considerable delay in the resolution of your matter and that this has been very difficult as you have faced a very uncertain future, I do not accept that you have used this time to demonstrate reform.
7. Considering the differing versions, you gave the court as to your abstinence and your past and more recent offending, I am wary of accepting that you have 'very good' prospects for rehabilitation as urged by your counsel. That said, in the recent pre-sentence court assessment both with Corrections and with MHARS, you reported that you are currently medicated with an antidepressant and that you have self-referred for counselling at Uniting Care, Preston. You have been participating in weekly counselling with a goal to stop drug use all together. These facts in combination with your solid work ethic, your contribution as a sole business owner, and family man and the supports you have in the community, lead me to find your prospects for reform are reasonable.

1. The basic purpose for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, denunciation, deterrence both specific and general, and protection of the community and rehabilitation. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors such as the objective seriousness of your offending, your role in the offending, your culpability, any mitigating factors and your personal circumstances.
2. General deterrence and denunciation are prominent sentencing considerations in drug-related offences of this type. The law aims to address the damage caused by illicit drugs in various ways, particularly by targeting those responsible for their cultivation and distribution, who usually benefit financially at the expense of the health and wellbeing of individual drug users and communities.
3. In my view, specific deterrence has a limited role to play in this sentencing exercise. It is apparent that the offending has cost you dearly. You have lost your home, your business and the loss of contact with your family. I find that these are significant losses which will also include your loss of liberty. I am confident this will deter you from further offending.
4. I have also considered the application of the principle of totality. I must ensure that the total effective sentence is just and proportionate to the overall criminality involved. In determining the appropriate total effective sentence, I have considered that you will be serving your first significant prison term and that you are a non-citizen and facing deportation. I am mindful that I must not impose a crushing sentence that provides no hope for the future.
5. The principles of proportionality and parsimony are also important considerations. They require me to make sure the punishment imposed fits the crimes committed and that I do no more than is necessary to punish you for your role in the offending. I have taken these principles into consideration in fixing the sentences I will now impose.
6. I also consider the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act[6] where relevant in your case and I have had regard to the current sentencing practices for the cultivation of cannabis in a commercial quantity. I have undertaken an extensive exploration of recent commercial cultivation cases both in this jurisdiction and in the Court of Appeal. Whilst each case must be determined on the facts pertinent to it, the cases I have reviewed have assisted me to determine the sentencing landscape. Those cases which result in lower penalties involve offending that is unsophisticated, committed by people who are subservient, who are at great risk, receive very little if any reward, who offend for a very short time and who have no prior history. I have further considered the sentencing statistics that apply to the offence of cultivation of a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity, obviously mindful of the limitation that accompanies the use of statistics.

1. Mr Bedjeti, you had a subservient yet important role in the offending. The set-up at your home was sophisticated albeit set up by others. Your offending persisted for a relatively short duration of six weeks. The quantity involved was significant, but not the highest seen by this court and your motivation was partially to support your own use and partly financial. In these circumstances, I consider your offending to fall in the lower mid-range of offending of this sort.
2. I have had regard to the factors relied upon in mitigation, particularly the very real prospect of deportation, the considerable delay, the significant losses you have sustained, and your plea of guilty. Your counsel submitted a combination penalty was open to the court notwithstanding the cultivation offence is a designated Category 2 offence.[7] I have had you assessed for a community correction order, and you have been assessed as suitable. When weighing all factors, I have concluded that a combination sentence would be inadequate, and I must impose a head sentence and non-parole period in your case.
3. Mr Bedjeti, you are convicted of each of the charges before the court and you are sentenced as follows.
4. In relation to Charge 1, cultivation of a narcotic plant in a commercial quantity, I have sentenced you to 18 months' imprisonment and that is the base sentence.
5. In relation to theft of electricity, I sentence you to six months imprisonment and two months of that will be cumulative on the base.
6. In relation to handle stolen goods, I sentence you to six months' imprisonment and two months of that sentence will be cumulative on the base,
7. Possess a drug of dependence, I sentence you to four months' imprisonment with one month cumulative.
8. Summary related offence, possess proceeds of crime or suspected of being proceeds of crime, I sentence you to four months' imprisonment and again one month is cumulative.
9. This makes a total effective sentence of two years imprisonment. I have determined that the period you must serve before being eligible for parole is 12 months. You have already served 15 days by way of presentence detention, and I will reckon this as time served under the sentence.
10. I consider the non-parole period to be the minimum term that justice requires you to serve and in setting this term I have taken into account the need to reflect general deterrence along with all of the significant mitigatory factors advanced on your behalf.
11. Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty, the sentence I would have imposed would have been four years' imprisonment with a two years six months' non-parole period.
12. I will make the orders for forfeiture and disposal sought by the Crown.
13. COUNSEL: As Your Honour pleases.
14. HER HONOUR: Mr Bedjeti, that is where I have landed. I know that it has been a long and very difficult process.
15. Thanks very much, counsel, for your very thorough submissions.
16. MR BARKER: Thank you, Your Honour.
17. HER HONOUR: I'll adjourn the court.

[1] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(2H).

[2] Failla v The King [2025] VSCA 132; Nguyen v The Queen [2017] VSCA 286; Le v The Queen [2021] VSCA 220; Selaci v The Queen [2020] VSCA 276

[3] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s201.

[4] Hague v The Queen [2022] VSCA 17 at [31].

[5] Guden v The Queen [2010] VSCA 196; (2010) 28 VR 288; Allouch v The Queen [2018] VSCA 244; Ong v The King [2023]

VSCA 116; Akot v The Queen [2020] VSCA 55 [34].

[6] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s5.

[7] Wright v The King [2023] VSCA 243.