STATE OF TASMANIA v HARRY JAMES TRIFFETT 1 NOVEMBER 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant Harry James Triffett was aged 32 at the time of the offending.
On 25 January 2023, at about 8.00am, police executed a drug-related search warrant at the defendant’s residence at London Lakes.
The property has an area of 897 hectares. The defendant resided there in a three bedroom dwelling. Close to the dwelling there were two sheds – one smaller, and a second larger shed which was partially constructed. Two shipping containers formed one side of the larger shed.
As part of the search, the defendant’s phone was seized by police. While searching it, police located photographs of cannabis bud, and images sent via ‘Snapchat’ of a cannabis plant, and screenshots of websites selling grow tents and fertiliser. Also located were photographs of the shipping containers in the defendant’s yard during construction; they depicted two shipping containers having been placed with a space in between them and a timber frame around the containers.
As a result of the phone’s contents, police examined the shipping containers. They removed a sheet of corrugated iron from the exterior. Behind the sheet was a void between the two containers. Located inside the concealed space was an empty “grow tent” and a filing cabinet. Located on the filing cabinet were two large plastic buckets with lids, and a square plastic tub with a lid. Police opened the containers to examine the contents and found that they were full with a quantity of dried cannabis bud. The square tub was half full with a quantity of dried cannabis bud.
Police searched the remainder of the property. In a smaller shed, a fourth, smaller, container was located which also contained dried cannabis bud. Items associated with the indoor cultivation of cannabis were also located, including a filter, extraction fan, ducting, thermos-hygrometer (used to measure temperature and humidity) and mechanical timers. These were new in unopened packaging and did not appear to have been used. Police also located a quantity of snap lock bags. I treat with considerable scepticism the defendant’s claim that the items found are consistent with indoor cultivation of plants such as tomatoes or strawberries. That claim really adds little to the equation because the defendant is not to be sentenced for what he might have done in the future, only that with which he is charged.
Police seized the four containers of cannabis and the grow room items and the defendant was arrested. The defendant told police that he was not a cannabis user and agreed that there was nothing located at the residence to indicate that he was. The total cannabis bud seized was 2,200 grams and the total value was between $15,000 and $24,000, depending on how it might have been sold.
The State asserts that the defendant trafficked in 2.2kg of cannabis by having it in his possession and/or guarding it or concealing it. There was no indication that the cannabis had been grown at the property, nor that he had sold any of it.
The defendant has spent no time in custody. He does not have any relevant prior convictions.
The State makes an application for an order pursuant to section 36B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 that the defendant pay the costs of analysis, being $400. I grant that application. The State makes application pursuant to s 38 of the Misuse of Drugs Act for orders that items 1, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6 and 7 on Property Seizure Record Receipt 186274 be forfeited to the State of Tasmania. I grant that application.
The defendant has pleaded guilty on the basis that he possessed the cannabis and/or was guarding it or concealing it in the belief that another person intended to sell it.
Trafficking in controlled substances is 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. In this case the defendant was not a user of cannabis thus personal deterrence and denunciation are also sentencing considerations.
I take into account the defendant’s plea of guilty and his prior good record. He is sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.