STATE OF TASMANIA v MICHAEL BRUCE BANKART ZODINS 12 JUNE 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
The defendant, Michael Bruce Bankart Zodins, has been found not guilty of trafficking in a controlled substance but guilty of possessing or using controlled plant or its products.
On 28 April 2022, police officers searched his property at Lune River in Tasmania and found a total of 4.082 kilograms of cannabis. There was cannabis in various locations inside the house; most of what was found there was packaged in 18 snap-lock bags.
In a shipping container outside, a plastic bag containing 10 snap-lock bags and 30 branches of cannabis plant still with cannabis bud and leaves were found, and another four branches were found inside the house. On racks outside the container, there were trays containing cannabis.
The cannabis had been harvested by the defendant and 42 cannabis root balls were found inside a hothouse, or compound; 17 root balls were found inside a smaller compound; and 9 root balls were found inside another compound near the house.
The defendant had 48 small cannabis plants that he was growing in one of the hothouses.
The amount of over 4 kilograms consisted of cannabis bud and does not include any of the branches or leaves that I referred to. If sold by the kilogram, it would fetch approximately $5,000 per kilogram.
The defendant was charged on the basis that he had possession with the intention to sell at least some of it. The intention component of the charge was rejected by the jury. He is not charged with cultivating cannabis, but I take into account the fact that there was significant effort on his part which resulted in his possession on 28 April 2022.
The defendant spoke to police and made admissions but denied he had an intention to sell the cannabis. He gave evidence at his trial and said that he planted the seeds but did not expect to produce such a large quantity. His evidence was that he was consuming a lot of cannabis at the time and his intention was to consume it himself. Some of it, however, had become mouldy so he was trying to dry it out. He gave evidence that he put the cannabis in the snap-lock bags to store it and keep it fresh. The weights of the snap-lock bags varied, which was consistent with his evidence that he did not weigh each of the amounts of cannabis in the bags. I should add that I accept the evidence he gave for the purpose of sentencing.
At the time, the defendant was living alone after a relationship break-up. He was not working after finishing a period of fly-in-fly-out labouring work in a mine in Western Australia and was living a relatively isolated life due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He was depressed, drinking a significant amount of alcohol, suffering a degree of physical pain, and generally not managing. He planted some cannabis seeds as something of a gardening project and produced a lot more than he was expecting. By the time of his arrest, he had been consuming cannabis for a few months and ingesting a large amount each week; he made cookies containing cannabis and was also smoking it.
The defendant has used cannabis intermittently since his teenage years, and in connection with personal difficulties such as relationship break-ups. He has no relevant prior convictions in Tasmania but a prior conviction from Queensland in 2002 for producing and possessing dangerous drugs relating to cannabis, for which he was fined by a magistrates court.
The defendant has been consulting a psychologist, Peter Nelson, since March 2023. He has undertaken counselling with Holyoake and ceased his use of cannabis. He has also undertaken monthly drug-screening for a period of approximately 12 months with negative results.
He has obtained full-time shift work with Huon Aquaculture with a maintenance crew. He has family and a support base in his home state in Queensland, and he plans to sell the property at Lune River and return to be with family and friends. This move seems to be in the interests of his mental health.
I have a number of references from people who know the defendant well and they speak highly of his character and values. He has expressed remorse for his behaviour and I am satisfied that is genuine.
It is recommended by a psychiatrist, Dr Phillip Reid, who provided a medico-legal report that the defendant continue to attend appointments with a psychologist on a monthly basis for another 12 months. I am satisfied the Court can rely upon the defendant to pursue this voluntarily without the need to mandate this as part of a court order.
The submission was made on the defendant’s behalf that he should be fined for this charge. That penalty is inadequate in my view and fails to pay regard to the goal of general deterrence. The defendant had possession of a very large quantity of cannabis bud and this case falls towards the high end of the scale of seriousness for this offence.
While he had no intention to sell it or supply any of it at the time, he may have been prevailed upon to do so once others became aware of his stash. This cannabis was a commodity that was highly desirable to criminals and, if discovered, there was also a strong prospect it might have been stolen from him and sold and circulated in the community.
Cannabis is a very harmful drug that causes a lot of harm in the community. Hopefully, the defendant has been able to achieve abstinence on a permanent basis, but not everybody is able to do that and their lives are blighted by this drug.
I am satisfied there is no need for personal deterrence as the defendant has learnt a harsh lesson. The charge has been hanging over his head for some time and he has suffered anxiety in relation to the outcome, he has had to decline employment opportunities, and it has been a costly process.
In my view, the sentence I have in mind will achieve the purpose of deterring others and enable his ongoing rehabilitation, which is an important goal for this defendant, who I am satisfied is unlikely to return to this offending.
I record a conviction and I impose a term of three months’ imprisonment which is wholly suspended on condition that he commit no offences which could attract a term of imprisonment for two years from today.
I make an order under s 36B of the Misuse of Drugs Act, that the defendant pay the costs of analysis of $4,300.
I make a forfeiture order as sought in relation to the following items set out on the property seizure receipt dated 28 April 2022:
- All the snap-lock bags (items 2ai, 2bi, 2ci, 2di, 2ei, 2fi, 2gi, 2hi, 2ii, 2ji, 27a, 28a, 28b, 28c, 28d, 28e, 29a, 29b, 29c, 29d, 32a, 32b, 33a, 34, 34a, 34b, 34c, and 34d)
- The grow lights (items 4, 5, and 6);
- The box containing new yellow and red snap-lock bags (item 27);
- The black garbage bag (item 29);
- The Tallyho papers (item 34cii); and
- The scales (item 35).