STATE OF TASMANIA v KEITH THOMAS SMITH and ADAM VINCENT CHARLES HILL 4 NOVEMBER 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendants, Keith Smith and Adam Hill, have pleaded guilty to a joint indictment charging one count of cultivating a controlled plant and one count of trafficking in a controlled substance. I have also agreed to deal with the summary offences on complaint numbers 8123 and 8124 of 2023, charge 6 on those complaints, a charge of using a controlled plant, being the only charge that is not subsumed into the indictment. I have accepted pleas of guilty through counsel to that charge against both men.
On a search of the defendants’ property, on 30 May 2023, police observed two grow tents and boxes of cannabis leaf and stalk spread out around the outside of tents, a large metal dish containing cannabis mulch/leaf, cannabis in a grinder and seven cannabis plants outside the tents. The total quantity of cannabis leaf and stalk and mulch/leaf was 1,086.46 grams.
Inside the grow tent was a large multi levelled drying basket. Each level of the basket held a quantity of cannabis. The total quantity of cannabis bud was 1,018.28 grams.
Inside the second grow tent were 12 cannabis plants growing in pots. Below the shed in a greenhouse, police found seven more cannabis plants. In a fire pot they also found 3.08 grams of cannabis.
Police then found a second door to the shed which led to a room lined with plastic sheeting. There were 32 cannabis plants, 241 grams of cannabis and some cannabis cuttings in small pots that had not yet grown roots.
The seven cannabis plants outside the tents were determined not to be healthy. They had no commercial value. The 1,086.46 grams was determined to be leaf and stalk and mulch/leaf and had no commercial value.
The 1,018.28 grams of cannabis bud could be worth $8,000 if sold by the pound.
The 12 cannabis plants in the second grow tent were healthy and had the potential to yield 4–6 ounces per plant. I emphasise the word potential because the plants were in the early stages of growth and the earlier crop had not flourished well. If sold by the ounce, there was potential to make between $14,400 and $21,600.
The seven plants in the greenhouse were determined not to be healthy and had no commercial value.
The 32 cannabis plants in the second grow tent were healthy and had the potential to yield 4–6 ounces per plant. If sold by the ounce, there was potential to make between $38,400 and $57,600. I again emphasise the word potential.
A trafficable quantity of cannabis is 20 plants or 1 kilogram. There was twice the trafficable quantity in healthy cannabis plants and there was a trafficable quantity in cannabis bud. The total value of the cannabis was between $60,800 and $87,200. This does not include the 241 grams of cannabis referred to earlier.
The State assert that the defendants are jointly criminally responsible for cultivating the 44 cannabis plants for sale with the intention of selling them and are also jointly criminally responsible for possessing the 1,018.28 grams of cannabis bud with the intention of selling it. Both defendants are cannabis users, Smith for pain relief and Hill to help him sleep. It was intended to freeze and use for personal use the usable cannabis which was drying when police arrived. The defendants concede that the new cannabis, if produced, would have been for sale. It is conceded, at least, that any excess was intended to be sold.
Hill is now aged 33 and has no relevant prior convictions, and the defendant Smith is now aged 59 and has prior convictions for cultivating a controlled plant in 1999, and cultivating a controlled plant for sale in 2013.
Trafficking in controlled substances remains a serious crime. This Court does not distinguish between the culpability involved in trafficking cannabis, as opposed to any other illicit drug. Cannabis is no longer regarded as a soft drug, and it is now accepted that it is a drug with a range of potentially dangerous and harmful consequences for its users, particularly young persons. General deterrence remains a significant sentencing consideration.
I take into account the defendants’ pleas of guilty, albeit late, their differing ages and their differing prior convictions.
The defendant Smith is sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of twelve months.
The defendant Hill is sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of twelve months.