STATE OF TASMANIA v JOHN WILLIAM BRADFORD CUTHBERTSON J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 31 July 2026
John William Bradford, you have been found guilty by a jury of cultivating a controlled plant for sale. On 7 February 2025, police attended your property at Kellevie for reasons unrelated to this matter. While there, they found a substantial cannabis crop growing outdoors. Three plants were located in a vegetable patch. Some cuttings being propagated, 14 in total, were found in a shed next to the vegetable patch. A large number of cannabis plants were found growing in an outdoor enclosure that was fenced off from animals. The cannabis plants in the enclosure and vegetable patch were at a mature stage and showing the first signs of flowering. Police ultimately counted 177 individual cannabis plants, including the 14 cannabis cuttings.
At trial, there was no issue that you had cultivated the cannabis. You told police that you had grown the cannabis plants from seed. You admitted that the cuttings were ones you had taken from a female plant. You also admitted to tending the cannabis, including by fertilising and watering it regularly. The compound in which the bulk of the plants were located included five hot house tents. Most of the plants in the compound were individually potted into large black plastic pots. A large number of the plants were also individually surrounded by wire cages which you agreed were for the purpose of providing further protection from animals. The photographs of the cannabis crop depict plants which were clearly very healthy and close to maturity.
The only issue at trial was whether you intended to sell any of the cannabis or believed that someone else intended to sell any of it. Because of the number of plants involved and the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act, it was to be presumed that you had that intention or belief unless you satisfied the jury, on the balance of probabilities, to the contrary. It follows from the verdict that the jury was not satisfied that you did not intend to sell any of it or did not believe that someone else intended to do so. It is now for me to determine the factual basis of sentence consistent with that verdict.
You are 56 years old. You are married and live at the property with your wife. At the time of the offending, your six children were living with you. You and your family members are all regular users of cannabis. It was your case at trial that you grew the cannabis for personal use and for other members of your family. You gave evidence that this was the first time you had attempted to grow cannabis, that the structures, pots and fencing which were housing the plants were preexisting and repurposed for the crop, and that you were not expecting the plants to do as well as they did.
The jury must have rejected that account. In my view, they were right to do so. There were a large number of plants. Your evidence was that you planted a large number of seeds you had accumulated over a number of years in one single pot. You said that most had germinated, and that you potted them into larger, individual pots. You claim to have had no idea how many of the plants you were nurturing would produce smokeable flower, and estimated probably 20. You admitted to having previously undertaken a horticulture course. The evidence established that a considerable amount of care had been taken to protect the plants from predators. As the State put it, you undertook considerable risk by nurturing and keeping such a large number of plants which would produce an amount of cannabis that far exceeded what you and your family would have been able to use. The evidence that was lead during the course of the trial, which I accept beyond reasonable doubt, satisfies me that cannabis has a limited shelf life. Even when it is carefully stored, it will not last in excess of six months. The evidence of Detective Sergeant Cosentino, which I accept, established that each of the mature plants was conservatively estimated to yield between two and four ounces per plant. As a consequence, the 163 mature plants were estimated to produce sufficient useable cannabis to last a single, heavy user 27 years. The value of the cannabis that the crop could have potentially yielded was $81,500 if sold by the ounce. You accepted in your evidence that there was no way that you could use nearly 10 kilograms of cannabis before it would go bad. You also agreed that it would take a long time to get through five kilograms of cannabis. During cross-examination, you expressed a degree of ignorance about the potential value of cannabis. I found that aspect of your evidence unconvincing. You have clearly used cannabis for a long period of time. The cost of purchasing cannabis is something you must have been very familiar with. In fact, you proffered it as an explanation for embarking on growing cannabis yourself.
I accept that you were intending to keep some of the cannabis you grew for your own use and to supply to members of your immediate family. You did not take any measures to cull the excess plants. Consistent with the verdict of the jury, I am satisfied you intended to sell the amount of cannabis you produced that was excess to your own requirements. I accept that you had no settled plan to undertake sales; there is no evidence of such arrangements being in train as at the time of the detection and ultimate destruction of the crop. I do not consider it appropriate to categorise your cannabis growing as “unsophisticated” which was pressed by your counsel. Although there was no irrigation system in place, and only minimal measures had been undertaken to conceal the plants, other aspects suggest a good understanding of what was required to grow plants to maturity, including protecting them from foraging animals. I am satisfied the mature plants, which the evidence established were beginning to flower, were all female, suggesting that you had culled any male plants at an earlier stage. I find that the excess cannabis would have been valuable if sold. Although it is not possible to be more precise, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the crop could have yielded tens of thousands of dollars.
You have relevant prior convictions for drug offences albeit now of considerable age. In 1997 you were fined on charges of possessing, using and growing cannabis and possessing a smoking implement. You had a difficult childhood. You ceased formal education when you were 15 years old. Your record of prior convictions indicates you were in frequent contact with the criminal justice system from a young age for offences of burglary, stealing, motor vehicle stealing, other dishonesty matters, damage to property, drink driving offences, driving while disqualified or unlicenced, and common assault. A good deal of your prior offending is alcohol related. You have spent periods of time in custody, although the last of those sentences was imposed in 2001. At that time, you were made the subject of partially suspended sentences for driving while disqualified and burglary and stealing matters. You have subsequently been sentenced to further periods of suspended imprisonment for driving offences, offences against police, breach of bail and failure to appear. The most recent suspended sentence was imposed in 2012 for driving while disqualified and other associated driving charges. Your counsel submitted that you are unlikely to engage in this sort of behaviour again. It was put on your behalf that you recognise you need to take steps to address your own addiction to cannabis.
I sought an assessment by Community Corrections for your suitability for Home Detention and other community based orders. You have been assessed as unsuitable for a Home Detention Order. The reasons include that your property is unsuitable for electronic monitoring, you are still regularly using cannabis and have taken no steps to address that issue, and Community Corrections have experienced difficulty contacting you for the purposes of finalising their assessment. You have been assessed as unsuitable for Community Service due to a foot injury. You are assessed as suitable for community-based supervision as you required a high level of intervention from Community Corrections. The reports I have received identify that you are eligible for referral to the EQUIPS Addiction Program given your ongoing issues with cannabis use.
This is a serious case of cultivating with intent to sell. The number of plants involved is very significant. It is necessary to impose a sentence that serves to deter you and others from engaging in such conduct. I am satisfied that your offending, at least in part, is related to your drug use. Your offending in my view, warrants the imposition of a period of imprisonment. I do not, however, consider it necessary to impose an actual period of imprisonment upon you for this offence. I will suspend the operation of the period of imprisonment that I will impose. It will be a condition of suspension that you submit to the supervision of a probation officer and complete the EQUIPS Addiction Program.
John William Bradford, you are convicted on the indictment. You are sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. I wholly suspend that term for three years from today on the following conditions:
- that you do not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during the period the order is in force; and
- that you are subject of the supervision of a probation officer for a period of 18 months.
There are a number of conditions which attach to the supervision condition I have imposed which are set out at s 42AO(2)(b)-(f) of the Sentencing Act. They will be provided to you in writing. They include a condition that you report to the office of Community Corrections in Hobart within three business days of this order. In addition, I impose a special condition pursuant to s 42 that during the operational period of the supervision condition, you must attend, participate in, and complete the EQUIPS Addiction Program as directed by a probation officer. If you breach the condition that you do not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment while the order is in force, you should understand that the suspended period of imprisonment must be imposed unless that is unjust. If you fail to comply with the terms of the supervision condition, you are also liable to be resentenced, including by the activation of the term of imprisonment.