R v Applewaite & Jones [1996] QCA 533

Court of Appeal (Qld)|1996-12-20|Before: Before McPherson J, Pincus J, Thomas J, McPherson JA, White J, Davies J, Cullinane J

I have read the joint reasons of McPherson J.A. and Thomas J. I am inclined to think that one reason for the apparent discrepant treatment of cannabis growers must be the nature of the governing legislative scheme. The maximum penalty in the instant case is 20 years imprisonment, because the quantity of cannabis exceeded that specified in the Third Schedule; there were more than a hundred plants. That limit - a hundred plants - is alternative to another, namely 500 grams; the total weight of seedlings and seeds was only about 3% of the weight limit (500 grams), but the effect of the Schedule is that if the drug consists of plants and the weight is less than 500 grams, then the question becomes whether there were more or fewer than a hundred plants.

There is what might be called a sliding scale, but it slides in a precipitous fashion. If the amount of cannabis is less than the limit just discussed, then the liability in the Supreme Court is to imprisonment for 15 years instead of 20 years; in the instant case, had there been fewer than a hundred plants, weighing very much more than here (but still less than 500 grams), the maximum penalty would have gone down to 15 years. But, much more importantly, there would have been the opportunity to have the case heard by a magistrate who could have imposed only a 2 year penalty.

This has produced some strange outcomes; the gap between a 2 year and a 20 year maximum penalty for quite similar circumstances is an odd one. In her reasons in Kennedy (C.A. No. 516 of 1994, 20 February 1995), relied on for the appellants, White J. referred to Lintott and Gilmore (C.A. Nos. 252 and 253 of 1993, 10 September 1993), where this Court altered sentences downwards. The facts of the case, fortuitously, illustrate the point I have endeavoured to make above. There, the quantity by weight was many times that which was in issue here; there was a total of 490 grams of cannabis. But the number of plants was just under a hundred, so that it became a Magistrates Court case. The seriousness of the offence, as a cannabis production operation, does not appear to have been much less than in the present case, but the maximum penalty was 1/10th - 2 years instead of 20 years. No doubt that was a reason for the Court (Macrossan C.J., Davies J.A. and Cullinane J.) having reduced the penalties imposed below to a suspended sentence for one offender and a 3 month custodial sentence for the other.

The problem is, I reiterate, that the law has imposed two very different penalties, one ten times the other, which may apply in circumstances of quite similar criminality. It appears to me that the Court cannot, in fixing the penalty when the case happens to be one which, although relatively minor, is determined in the Supreme Court, completely ignore the consideration I have just mentioned.

Here, the weight of cannabis found was relatively trivial, in total - plants, seeds and all - a little over half an ounce. It is true that this would not have been so, perhaps, had the police found the operation a few weeks later, when at least some of the seedlings would have become much larger plants, if all went well for the cultivators, and they persisted. But one does not know that any substantial quantity of cannabis would ultimately have been produced.

In these circumstances, the sentences imposed seem to me questionable, particularly that imposed on Applewaite, whose criminal history (apart from an offence last year, in relation to which no conviction was recorded) is old and not significant. Applewaite, unlike Jones, who has served a term for armed robbery, has never been to prison before and his having entered into the venture was said to have been due to a need for funds because of a then recent injury. Jones said that the venture was his basically his idea, not Applewaite's; the methods used were amateurish rather than professional in character.

I think the penalty imposed upon both applicants was rather high, but it is difficult to accede to Jones' application because of his criminal record. I would dismiss Jones' application and allow Applewaite's; I would allow the appeal against sentence by Applewaite and reduce his sentence by half, to 9 months.

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON JA and THOMAS J

These matters were heard together. They are applications for extension of time to appeal against sentence. The applicants were convicted by a jury of producing cannabis exceeding the quantity specified in Schedule 3, and were sentenced by the Circuit Court Judge on 30 August 1996.

Each applicant filled out an application for leave to appeal and signed it the day after, that is on 31 August 1996, and handed it to his legal representative. Due to oversight by the articled clerk the matter was not brought to the attention of the principal in time, and the notice of appeal in each matter was not filed until 8 October 1996.

The delay is properly explained and was not the fault of the applicants personally. The Crown did not oppose the granting of an extension.

The Court reserved the question of extending time, and on its invitation the parties have argued the matter as upon an appeal.

Applewaite was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, and Jones to two years' imprisonment. They were jointly engaged upon the relevant venture, and the main factor justifying a difference in the sentences was the more extensive criminal record of Jones.

The applicants were apprehended on 20 March 1996 in a bush area near Attie Creek via Cardwell. An off-duty police sergeant and an environment ranger stumbled across their camp whilst on a pig-shooting expedition. They found some freshly dug garden-beds and a "lean-to" camp with a camouflaged net. There was no resistance, and the two men made, with one exception, what would appear to be fairly frank admissions. The exception was Applewaite's statement "We have only got a couple of hundred plants," whereas a count showed 504 cannabis seedlings in starter-pots, and about 50 seedlings in an area of turned soil, which the prosecution flatteringly described as a garden-bed. The plants were described as "very tiny". The analysts's certificate states that the 52 seedlings weighed a total of approximately 1.4 grams whilst the 504 seedlings weighed a total of 6 grams. Various seeds were weighed totalling 9.2 grams. Schedule 3 describes the limit as 500 grams "or, if the dangerous drug consists of plants the aggregate weight of which is less than 500 grams, 100 plants".

Jones told the interviewing policeman that they had been there for a "couple of weeks". Both admitted that they were trying to make "a bit of money", Jones claiming that it was basically his idea and that he was doing it to help his mate (Applewaite) who needed money and could not get work because of his leg.

Applewaite had previously served in the army for seven years, and had left after suffering a serious motor-cycle accident, for which he had not, by the time of this offence, received compensation.

They showed the visitors over their camp and some "garden-beds" which had recently been cultivated but not yet sown, except of course for the area containing about fifty seedlings. An irrigation system and polythene pipe led to the camp from a creek. The area containing the seedlings in starter-pots was in a fenced off area.

In the context of camp-production cases, this one was small and unsophisticated. The "camp" was very rough and ready, the agricultural aids minimal, and the area and project relatively small.

It is difficult and perhaps dangerous to attempt to generalise in cases of this kind, but some rationalisation seems necessary if sentencing patterns are to be understood.

The most commonly encountered types of cannabis production are back-yard production, bush-camp production, and farm-assisted plantations. Sentencing patterns show that save in the case of repeat offenders a moderate approach is generally made in relation to back-yard production, particularly when the production is for the own use of the grower. The bush-camp cases tend to attract a more serious response, depending particularly on the size if the operation and the persistence of the operators, as well as the sophistication of the project and the end object of the operation. The farm plantation cases are commonly more ambitious than those so far mentioned, and depending factors such as size and object of the operation, tend to merit the higher penalties.

Sentences for the earlier offence of cultivation, and now of production, seem to have fluctuated considerably. The maximum penalty under s.8(d) of the Drugs Misuse Act[1] is twenty years' imprisonment. When the quantity of a Schedule 1 drug is less than that prescribed in Schedule 3 the maximum penalty (under s.8(e)) is fifteen years. Such cases may be dealt with summarily under s.13), and when this happens the maximum sentence is two years. All too often such cases (including quite minor examples of the offence) are brought before the Supreme Court.

Starting at the lower end of the scale there are some production offences which are considered to be appropriately dealt with by the imposition of a fine or a community based order, and where it is appropriate that no conviction be recorded. Such cases were reviewed by this court (Macrossan CJ, Pincus JA and Byrne J) in Dixon and Jones v. Irvine CA 535 of 1994, unreported, 27 March 1995. In that case a fifty-three year old offender, with no previous convictions, was growing 23 plants of varying heights up to about two feet, and also had some seeds. This was regarded as a "relatively minor" marijuana offence and the Court observed that "a distinct practice of declining to record convictions, where the offender has committed a minor offence or minor offences relating to marijuana, is discernible". It added that in special circumstances, even offenders who have committed prior offences may be considered to merit the advantage of not having a conviction recorded. Non-custodial sentences are common for first offenders or virtual first offenders even when the quantities are considerably higher than the quantity in that case.

At the other end of the scale are offenders who engage in large-scale production on a plantation or plantations in the course of professionally organised crime. In cases where such offenders are convicted of production, sentences of eight years' imprisonment, sometimes with a parole recommendation, are not uncommon.[2]

Between these extremes, the main factors which influence the level of sentence seem to be the following:

1. The size of the plantation, the sophistication of the project and its potential for profit.

2. Whether the production is for commercial gain or own use.

3. The planning involved, the professionalism, and the degree of criminality or wickedness which is discernible.

4. Whether the offender is a principal, or (scaling downwards) a profit-sharer, paid worker, or mere peripheral helper.

5. The period over which the offender has been engaged in the criminal enterprise.

6. Whether the offender has prior convictions, especially of a similar nature. Obviously a prior conviction for production or supply is far more relevant than one of possession.

7. Special factors common to most sentencing procedures, such as assistance to the police, early plea, young offender etc.

The attached schedule, which is by no means comprehensive, provides a sample of approaches both by single justices of the Supreme Court and of decisions of the Court of Appeal in production cases in recent years. Indeed more extensive schedules prepared by counsel for the applicants suggest that it is quite common for Supreme Court Judges at first instance to impose non-custodial sentences in cases involving between 200 and 300 plants even when there has been some degree of commercial purpose, but there are also cases involving similar quantities which resulted in terms of custody. The degree of commercial purpose seems to be an important factor. It is quite impossible to reconcile the large number of instances that have been supplied. Of course greater weight must be given to the cases in the attached schedule which have come to the Court of Appeal. The cases have been selected only from the lower end of the range, that is to say cases which have produced sentences of less than four years, but we have not included matters toward the bottom of the range such as Dixon and Jones.

It seems fairly clear that relatively light sentences (including sometimes suspended sentences) are given mainly when the offender is "on the very periphery of the plan", or has "very limited involvement" or is a "minor figure", or where production is substantially for his or her own use. The absence of previous convictions or the possession of only minor previous convictions also seems to be an important factor in these cases.

We have also adverted to a number of sentences imposed by Cullinane J, some of which were reviewed by this Court in R. v. Cook, Coleman, Kake, Innes and Le Blowitz CAs 219, 231, 242, 243 and 250 of 1996, unreported, 19 November 1996, dealing with those involved in professionally organised plantations in North Queensland. It seems fair to say that sentences of three years are a common result for persons (usually with more than minor criminal histories) who have been employed as workers on such plantations for substantial periods. However, as the judgments in Cook, Kake and Innes show, special factors may justify early recommendations for parole.

It will also be seen from the schedule that sentences of three years' imprisonment have not infrequently been imposed with respect to production of similar quantities to those in issue here, although such sentences have commonly be tempered by a recommendation for parole after twelve months. The schedule is of limited value in that the precis do not permit reliable comparisons to be drawn. The schedule merely permits an overview to be had of sentencing levels in a variety of circumstances.

Reference was made during submissions to R v. Mrsic CA 135 of 1994, unreported, 12 May 1994, Morris v. Lintott and Gilmore CA Nos 252 and 253 of 1993, unreported, 10 September 1993, and R v. Kennedy CA 516 of 1994, unreported, 20 February 1995. It is certainly difficult to reconcile the results in those cases, at least on the limited statements of facts available. Suffice it to say that in Lintott and Gilmore, which was an appeal from a sentence imposed by a magistrate, there was production of 93 plants (up to two inches in height) with commercial intention. This Court reduced the magistrate's sentences of nine months' imprisonment (with a non-parole period of six months) to a three months suspended sentence for Lintott and to a three months' sentence for Gilmore. Lintott had no previous criminal history but Gilmore did. In Kennedy's case, 374 cannabis seedlings had been grown to a height of ten centimetres. The original sentencing judge imposed three years' imprisonment with parole after twelve months on the production charge. This was conceded by counsel for the Crown on the appeal to have been excessive, and a number of cases were referred to in which this Court had upheld sentences of eight months or less for the production of seedlings ranging in number between 26 and 328. In Kennedy's case the Court set aside the three years' sentence and replaced it with imprisonment for nine months. In Mrsic above this Court refused leave to appeal against a three-year sentence imposed on an offender who was growing 850 cannabis plants in the early stages of growth in a rain-forest between Cardwell and Tully. His criminal record was described as "unimpressive" by reason of numerous offences of dishonesty, although those offences were old.

We do not see any useful purpose in closer analysis of those particular decisions. The results were no doubt influenced by perceptions of criminality and of other factors which have been listed above as the main factors that influence sentences for this particular offence. On the face of it, the seriousness of the present matters lies in between that of Kennedy and Mrsic, and so do the sentences that were imposed.

The present offenders were co-principals in a planned attempt to make money out of growing cannabis and had established a camp in a remote place and planted over 500 plants. It was a s.8(d) offence. In the context of the "camp" cases it was relatively small-scale and unsophisticated

Applewaite is thirty years old and has only a minor criminal history consisting of three offences when he was aged seventeen or eighteen (driving under the influence, stealing and unlawful use), and one offence of possession of a drug and pipe in 1995, for which he was fined $900 without any conviction being recorded. Jones is aged thirty-three, and has a more serious although not lengthy criminal history. There were five offences (including one of carnal knowledge) by the time he was twenty-one for which he was fined or placed on probation. There was then a serious offence - armed robbery - for which he was sentenced in 1986 to four and a half years' imprisonment. He has two further offences, one of shop-stealing in 1996 and one of unlawful possession of a drug in 1992. This more serious history, together with his acceptance of the slightly dominant role in the enterprise would seem to justify the difference in treatment of the two offenders.

Both of them went to trial, and obviously neither is entitled to any discount by reason of early plea, cooperation or remorse.

When all factors are considered, the sentences would appear to lie within the proper range for exercise of a sentencing discretion. We would refuse the applications.

5,232 plants grown for a commercial purpose in the Rockhampton area. Sentenced as one of the two people involved in the cultivation

Prior conviction for possession of pipe. Gave information to police which was of assistance

[Williams J: "at least 4 yrs" is usually called for in such circumstances; Thomas J: relatively large cultivations range 4-6]

850 plants grown in 4 plots in isolated rainforest in the Cardwell area. Plots surrounded by fences and watered by water pumped from a stream

Prior convictions, numerous offences of dishonesty up until 1976

Plea. Had abscon- ded to NT, served a term of imp in NT on another drug matter and then extradited to Qld

126 plants which was expected to produce a harvest of 10 pounds of cannabis.

Sentenced on basis of being employed to help in tending and harvesting the plants grown for a commercial purpose

1500 seeds planted in the Ingham area. Arrested as seeds were being planted. Sentenced on the basis that he was by reason of his age under the influence of his father who was also charged. Area planted was small, about _ of acre

(NOTE: reduced on appeal from a sentence of 5 yrs with a rec for parole after 2 yrs)

145 plants grown for a commercial purpose in a very sophisticated underground nursery. 118 plants growing in the ground. Sentenced on the basis that he played a lesser role in the cultivation than his father who was the principal offender. Total value $15,000

Without cooperation there was no evidence against himself

(NOTE: reduced on appeal from a sentence of 3½ years imp)

374 plants located in back yard - all around 10cm high - 735g found in house - commercial element

3½ years imp recently reduced to 9 months on appeal

24 plants - 300g cannabis and 500 seeds - admitted to 10-15 sales totalling $2,000

Appeal judges stated there is a distinct practice of declining to record a conviction where an offender committed minor offences relating to cannabis. Following C of A judgments were considered: Devine v. Fullalove (CA 155/1993), Graydon v. Dickson (CA 36/1993), Devine v. Shannon (CA 115/1993), Castles v. Backhouse (CA 75/1994), Wheeler v. Francis (CA 89/1994), R v. Andjelkovic (CA 182/1993); R v. Taylor (CA 359/1994).

Police raided applicant's home at midnight and found 23 cannabis plants of varying heights up to 2 ft. Also found was a container with seeds and another holding approximately 2 g of green leafy material. A pipe was used to smoke the cannabis. Applicant stated he was growing the cannabis for his own use.

17 plants - 7.9 kg of product found in house - co-accused husband received 3 years reduced to 2 years' imprisonment on appeal

17 mature plants - an associated harvested crop of 7.9 kg (9 times scheduled quantity) - street value $25,000-$30,000 - sentenced as one of two people involved in cultivation - cultivation was for a commercial purpose

Previous convictions for production of cannabis on two earlier occasions both receiving custodial sentences - second production - possession of 618 plants - 5.5 kg of harvested crop

3½ years imp cumulative reduced to 2 years cumulative

500 plants: "Well watered and fertilised". Claimed another was the principal operator of the crop. Participated in the cultivation at the beginning and involved in loading at least one load of cannabis for commercial distribution

5,232 plants (some up to 1.6m high, not all healthy). Cultivation described as well advanced and cared for. Cooperated with police, provided a statement involving an accomplice and indicated willingness to give evidence. Involved in the cultivation over a lengthy period

2877 plants grown hydroponically in a house at Loganlea. Described as a very substantial operation with house being protected by security screens, fencing. He was sentenced on the basis that he was more extensively involved than his co-accused HENARE. He did not have a stake in the anticipated profits. Sentenced as a "worker" rather than a principal (see HENARE (1 yrs imp))

763 plants grown for a commercial purpose in the Mt Molloy area.

3197 plants grown for a commercial purpose in Dalby area.

Sentenced on basis of being a person employed in the tending of the crop. (Also see DALY (4 yrs imp & rec), SINGH (2 yrs imp & rec))

695 plants (586 growing in a shed - the balance growing wild in the scrub) grown on the offender's property

Accused was growing 328 cannabis plants. Accused told police cannabis was for own use but "I'd share it with friends".

His Honour took into account accused's good character until he experienced middle age crisis. His Honour accepted commercial element of offence.

Accused had cultivated 318 cannabis plants at Lockhart River. Plants were 1 to 2 metres high and quite mature. Accused was a recluse. Accused had been receiving counselling for marriage breakup. Accused was not employed at the time and has one child.

Previous non-custodial - 2 for possession of a dangerous drug (details not supplied)

Judge took into account no prev convictions, excellent work history, sole parent, and positive response to rehabilitation.

Accused was searched at home and police located 5547 gms of cannabis. Accused admitted ownership, that he had grown it, that he had supplied on one occasion and had used his vehicle to get the crop. Since early retirement accused had become idle and grew cannabis mostly for own use to treat pain of back condition. Cannabis was poor quality, operation was not sophisticated and there was an unclear commercial purpose. Accused is sole parent with three teenage daughters.

Judge stated that he had seen number of similar cases in regional areas where struggling farmers turn to growing cannabis as cash crop.

Accused is farmer who was in financial difficulty and attempted to sell cannabis crop. The quantity of cannabis was 927.5 gms valued at $8000. Accused has wife and one child.

Accused was growing 450 gms cannabis plants on rented semi-rural property with the possibility of selling cannabis. Quantity of cannabis exceeded quantity in third schedule of Drugs Misuse Act. Accused has de facto wife.

Judge did not accept that there was no commercial element. Took into account the poor criminal history of accused as well as problems of chronic anxiety and depression. Judge noted reports which suggest gaol as unsuitable as accused could take his own life. Judge felt something had to be done to help rehabilitate accused. Stated sentencing in this matter was not easy.

Accused lived on 26 acre property where he had been growing 304 cannabis plants. Also found were water buckets, garden tools and sprinklers. Accused was in possession of 321 grams of cannabis. Accused suffers from chronic anxiety and depression and has withdrawn from society. Also accused is user of cannabis, heroin and benzodiazepines.

Previous non-custodial (1980) possession of a dangerous drug

(1) $7500 fine in default 3 months imp and 6 months to pay

(2) 3 years probation and 240 hrs community service conditional upon psychiatric treatment

Judge stated that the accused's farm would go under if he was imprisoned. Considered minimal previous convictions and early guilty plea.

Accused is a farmer who was having difficulty meeting his loan. He grew cannabis with commercial intent. Accused is not addicted and sold for profit.

Previous non-custodial - previous conviction for possession of cannabis (details not supplied)

Accused was recruited to do cannabis crop sittings and was on site overseeing 300 plants for 7 days before arrested. He was asked to be on site by his girlfriend's father. Accused is employed with good work history.

Judge stated custodial sentence was not appropriate. Taking into account poor health of accused and isolated position of his residence, community service was also inappropriate. Took into account lack of previous history.

Accused was in possession of 230 cannabis plants ranging from seedlings to plants approx 20 centimetres tall. There was also quantity of seeds and 8.5 grams of green plant material. Accused was not prime mover in the scheme and was led into scheme by another. Both prosecution and judges were prepared to accept this but police were unable to gather evidence against another party.

Judge took into account the early plea of guilty and that accused had no previous convictions. Judge stated there may be a small commercial element involved but was mainly for personal use only. Judge considered that accused had cooperated with authorities and that this was an opportunistic crime and had not been planned.

Accused discovered a cannabis plantation while he was hunting wallabies. He took approximately 400 of the plants to another site to plant for himself. Accused took the plants to another location because he thought wallabies and scrub turkeys would reduce the number of plants. There was no implication or allegations of intent to supply. Plants were very small at the time.

1 yr imp suspended for 3 years on each charge. (Conviction recorded)

Judge stated he was worried about the large number of plants accused had been growing.

Accused had been growing cannabis for his own use in his backyard. There were 179 cannabis plants ranging from seedlings to plants which were 5 feet high. Accused also supplied approximately 8 ounces of cannabis to his friend. Accused was not employed at time of offences and is addicted to cannabis.

His Honour accepted drugs were for accused's own use. If it was commercial crop, sentence of at least 3 years imprisonment would have been imposed.

Accused grew 507 cannabis plants in sophisticated hydroponic system. Plants were hidden behind false wall inside accused's house. Value of plants was approx. $200,000. Drugs were grown for accused's own use.

Sentenced on basis he was drawn into offence by other offender (see JURKOVIC (4 yrs imp & rec))

1467 plants (8 to 9ft high) found growing in a shed on a bush property. 14 kilograms of harvested cannabis also found. Admitted to being the sole offender. Well regarded in the community. Engaged in the operation in order to get money to deal with various medical problems afflicting the family (e.g. daughter wheelchair-bound, son schizophrenia). Judge said he was giving a very considerable discount for the offender's family situation and own injuries (back injury)

78 plants grown in an industrial shed at Carrara. Photographs taken by offender of the crop at an earlier time indicated a more extensive cultivation. Setup described as indicating a "high degree of sophistication". Some of the crop had been sold prior to detection.

Prior convictions including: prior drug convictions for possession cannabis (1977), production cannabis (1989)

50 plants grown in bushland which produced 16kg of leaf. Submitted that drug for own use, but intended if necessary to sell part of it at some future time. "Nothing to suggest this was a sophisticated operation".

Prior drug convictions 1980 poss cannabis 1982 cult cannabis (fine) 1983 poss cannabis x 2 (fine)

3197 plants grown for a commercial purpose in the Dalby area. Sentenced on the basis of being a person employed in the tending of the crop. (Also see DALY (4 yrs imp & rec) and SFORZA (3 yrs imp & rec)).

(NOTE: in custody some unknown period prior to sentence(

75 plants (360 seedlings) grown for a commercial purpose

2877 plants grown hydroponically in a house at Loganlea. Described as a very substantial operation with house being protected by security screens, fencing. Henare had only been involved in the project for about three weeks, being under the supervision of another. He was paid $300.00 a week. The preparation of the house had been done before he became involved. He did not have a stake in the anticipated profits. Sentenced as a "worker" rather than a principal (see STEWART (3 yrs imp))

Substantial history including 3 prior convictions for possession of drugs

558 plants grown for a commercial purpose in the Lamington National Park. Acted as a driver (once a fortnight for a period of 5 months) for the person who was tending the crop

No prior drug convictions, but old conviction for which he was given probation

7000 plants (many seedlings, some up to 3 metres high) 200 kg of harvested cannabis. 43kg of seed found by police in a sophisticated cultivation concealed by a large hay-shed in the Gin Gin area. Sentenced on the basis that she was a visitor to the property 2 to 3 days prior to police raid and her involvement was limited to a very small amount of work (also see MINEHAN (4yrs imp))

(Charged with permitting his property to be used for production) 557 plants growing on offender's property. Described as a substantial operation (some plants up to 14 ft high). The crop was being grown by the offender's two sons. Sentence on the basis that he was aware cannabis was being grown, that it was an operation larger than that for personal use, but not aware of exact size of crop.

4 months approx in pre-sentence custody. No prior convictions

Thomas was on the very periphery of a plan to cultivate 8100 plants (a number had either failed or been harvested by the time of police intervention) on a property near Roma. He was not known to the main figures, being recruited by another into the plan in order to provide that person with some minor assistance by driving him around on one or two occasions, collecting some seeds and doing some paperwork. He was not alleged to receive anything from the scheme.

(Also see PANGALLO (8 yrs imp rec parole 3 yrs) ROMEO (6 yrs imp), ZUCCHELLI & DO (5 yrs imp))

Sentenced as a minor figure in the enterprise. Assisted in the "clean up" of a 14,000 plant crop site near Surat in the last four days of the production

[ 1 ] Section 8(d) applies to Schedule 2 drugs (which include cannabis) where the quantity exceeds that in the third schedule (which relevantly prescribes 500 grams or 100 plants).

[ 2 ] e.g. Galluzzo CA 43 of 1996, unreported 15 July 1996, where the Court of Appeal upheld nine years' imprisonment, but recommended parole after three years for a fifty-six year old offender with health problems who had been the entrepreneur in three large plantations; Pangallo, sentenced by Ambrose J on 28 August 1995 - two productions by a person described as "foreman" level with a sophisticated plantation of 8100 plants - heavily involved in planning from the inception - eight years' imprisonment with recommendation for parole after three years; Farrugia - 40,000 plants - ringleader of a group of six - Charleville area - eight years' imprisonment ordered by Connolly J; Petrosanec - 12,500 plants - ringleader - eight years' imprisonment (parole recommendation after two and a half years) ordered by Shepherdson J.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (119 paragraphs)

Parties