Cultivating Cannabis in a Commercial Quantity
Case Overview
Our client was charged with cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, together with a number of related offences. A search warrant was executed at the client’s premises following intelligence received by Victoria Police. During the search, police discovered a sophisticated hydroponic cultivation set-up spanning several rooms of the property.
The prosecution case relied upon items seized during the search that were instrumental to the cultivation process, in addition to the cannabis plant material itself, which had not yet been harvested. Botanical analysis ultimately assessed the cannabis material at almost three times the threshold for a commercial quantity by weight.
Our client made a number of admissions during interview, such that a defence to the allegations was not reasonably open. The matter therefore proceeded by way of a plea.
Defence Strategy
The offence of cultivating cannabis in excess of a commercial quantity carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment and is subject to a presumptive mandatory custodial sentence. In practical terms, this meant a Community Corrections Order was not available unless very specific or exceptional circumstances could be established. No such circumstances applied in this case.
Compounding the difficulty, our client also had a relevant prior history for cannabis cultivation offences. From an early stage, it was apparent that a term of imprisonment was the only realistic sentencing outcome. Our focus therefore became minimising the length of that sentence to the greatest extent possible and advocating for a structure that would best position our client for release.
Importantly, there was limited evidence to suggest our client had been engaged in the sale of cannabis, despite clear evidence of cultivation. Further, the circumstances leading up to the offending were unusual and deeply personal. Our client had experienced a significant personal loss shortly prior to the offending, and the emotional consequences of grief, together with addiction issues, became central to understanding the offending behaviour. Ensuring that this context was properly before the Court became a key aspect of the plea in mitigation.
Conclusion
Although imprisonment was unavoidable, careful consideration was given to how the sentence could be structured to maximise our client’s opportunity for rehabilitation and release on parole. The unusual and distressing personal circumstances preceding the offending allowed us to submit that a substantial parole period was appropriate and that a degree of leniency ought properly be exercised.
Ultimately, the Court accepted that our client’s circumstances were unusual and imposed a sentence that provided for an extended parole period. In matters where avoiding imprisonment is not realistically available, it is often necessary to focus on achieving the best possible outcome within the structure of the sentence itself. In this case, that meant persuading the Court there were compelling reasons for our client to become eligible for parole at the earliest appropriate opportunity. That outcome was successfully achieved.
Disclaimer: The case results featured are real matters handled by our firm. However, every case is different and outcomes vary depending on a range of factors, including the specific facts, circumstances and evidence involved. Past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes and should not be relied upon to predict or determine the result of your matter.