STATE OF TASMANIA v BHT 2 OCTOBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant has pleaded guilty at a very early time to a charge of trafficking in a controlled substance, namely methylamphetamine and cocaine, contrary to s 12(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, and I have also agreed to deal with a summary minor offence of possessing cannabis.
At the outset I should say that I accept the defendant’s counsel’s submission that the guilty plea before his committal for sentence, demonstrates his genuine acceptance of responsibility and remorse for his involvement in what was a criminal drug trafficking syndicate. His very early plea saved the Court and the community the time and expense of a trial and all that involves.
In February 2025, Tasmania Police and the Australian Federal Police formed a joint taskforce to investigate a statewide crime syndicate importing and distributing methylamphetamine and cocaine. Investigative methods included telephone interception, vehicle tracking, covert surveillance, drone footage, CCTV footage, and searches of premises and vehicles. Several individuals were charged with drug trafficking as a result.
The defendant’s residence at [address redacted], was used to store drugs between 13 April 2025 and 6 November 2025. Two persons [Name suppressed] and [name suppressed], couriers for the syndicate, delivered large quantities of drugs to the defendant’s home, which he stored in his shed. The defendant received encrypted instructions via an app known as Threema, to weigh, package, and deliver drugs to designated locations. He was observed delivering drugs on multiple occasions while employed as a painter.
Several specific drug exchanges involving the defendant were as follows:
- On 13 April 2025, [name suppressed] collected drugs from the defendant’s home and sold them in Smithton, Perth, and Berriedale
- On 10 May 2025, the defendant delivered drugs to [name suppressed] at Granton Train Park, which were later sold in Stanley and Perth
- On 13 May 2025, the defendant handed a package of drugs to [name suppressed] at his home, which were sold in Tasmania
- On 19 May 2025, the defendant gave drugs to [name suppressed], who sold them in Glenorchy
- On 23 May 2025, the defendant delivered drugs to [name suppressed] in Goodwood, which were later sold in Pontville and Brighton
- On 13 June 2025, the defendant handed drugs to [name suppressed], who sold them in Goodwood Park
- On 29 June and 10 August 2025, [name suppressed] collected drugs from the defendant’s home and sold them in Stanley, Otago, and Smithton.
The defendant communicated with two persons [name suppressed] and [name suppressed] via Threema, using the handle [supressed]. Messages revealed instructions for drug storage and delivery between 17 August and 7 September 2025. During this period, the defendant stored and delivered 588 grams of cocaine, 528 grams of methylamphetamine, and 196 grams of methylamphetamine or cocaine. Between 21 August and 7 September 2025, he stored and delivered 616 grams of methylamphetamine, 672 grams of cocaine, and 924 grams of methylamphetamine or cocaine.
On 12 November 2025, police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s home, but no drugs were found. The defendant admitted to storing drugs for two persons [name suppressed] and [name suppressed], packaging them, and delivering them to couriers. He claimed to have been paid $250–$300 per week, a total of $2,000–$3,000. He stated he wanted to stop earlier but was pressured to continue. The State does not dispute the small amount he received and while it accepts that the defendant might have wanted to stop at an earlier time, the fact is he ultimately chose not to.
The defendant participated in trafficking 4,504 grams of controlled substances, including 1,260 grams of cocaine, 1,144 grams of methylamphetamine, and 2,100 grams of methylamphetamine or cocaine. The street value of these drugs was estimated between $1,916,000 and $2,126,000.
[Name suppressed] has been charged with trafficking and dealing with proceeds of crime and committed to this Court for trial.
The defendant has not been in custody before and has only two prior convictions for summary drug offences. He is 34 years old and is in a long-term de facto relationship with his partner, the mother of his two children, aged 5 years and 10 months. He identifies as aboriginal. His childhood was marked by exposure to parental substance abuse, conflict, and violence, which all contributed to anxiety and depression. His mother left the family when he was in Grade 8, leading to behavioural issues and youth offending. He has recently reconnected with his parents, who now live in [address redacted]. Despite these challenges, he completed Year 11 and began a successful career in hospitality.
He has a strong employment record in hospitality, earning multiple awards and accolades during his career as a chef. He worked in various high-profile roles, including at MONA and Wrest Point Casino, and achieved recognition as a promising young chef. After the COVID-19 pandemic affected the hospitality industry, he transitioned to a painting apprenticeship with a firm where he remained employed until his recent remand in custody. His employer has expressed willingness to continue his employment upon his release.
The defendant began using cannabis and alcohol during high school, maintaining a functional level of addiction while employed. He has suffered from anxiety and depression, with suicidal ideation leading to police intervention in 2023. He is currently prescribed medication for depression and has been affected by excessive lockdowns in prison since his remand.
Since being charged, he has proactively engaged in counselling from The Hive, attending six sessions before his remand. It is accepted that his cannabis addiction played a role in his involvement in the drug trafficking operation. While he did not use the trafficked substances, he used the funds he earned to support his cannabis addiction. His partner was unaware of his involvement.
Relevant to the present case, in Director of Public Prosecutions v Kobelke [2020] TASCCA 10 Martin AJ at [26] said:
“26 The Director accepted that the respondent’s conduct was not aggravated by an involvement as an ‘entrepreneur’ or through the sharing of profits. However, the Director correctly contended that the respondent was ‘an integral link in the chain of distribution in a significant commercial operation’ and was ‘knowingly involved in an operation aimed at the generation of large profits’. Referring to R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54, 199 CLR 270, and Le v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 21, the Director correctly submitted that the respondent’s criminal culpability is to be assessed by ‘focussing on the nature and level’ of her involvement in the criminal enterprise.”
And at [39] his Honour said:
“39 In assessing the gravity of the respondent’s total criminal conduct, and her individual culpability, it is essential to avoid glossing over her conduct with expressions such as ‘she was a worker only’. It is of critical importance to examine the particular role undertaken by the respondent within the commercial criminal enterprise. It is obvious that, generally speaking, trafficking by those in control of an operation who benefit through profits, is at the higher end of the scale of seriousness of the crime of trafficking, attracting more severe penalties than those imposed on ‘workers’. However, it does not follow that every ‘worker’ is to be treated leniently or that the role of every ‘worker’ is not a serious crime warranting condign punishment.”
In the present case, whilst not addicted to the trafficked substances, the small amount (usurious one might say if in a legal context), he was paid for his criminal services were, I accept spent largely in funding his cannabis conviction.
I have applied a 25% discount to an otherwise appropriate sentence in this case to take account of the defendant’s earliest possible plea and that, together with his obvious remorse, his largely conviction free past, his sound employment record and his pro-active steps toward rehabilitation, have caused me to take an individualised approach to sentence.
The defendant is convicted of trafficking and of the summary offence of possessing a controlled plant product and is sentenced to a single sentence of four years and three months’ imprisonment, backdated to 4 September when he was remanded in custody. The last 18 months of that sentence is suspended on condition that the defendant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years from his release from prison. He is not to be eligible for parole until he has served half of the operative custodial period of that sentence. That is to say, until he has served 16 ½ months’ imprisonment from 4 September 2026.