STATE OF TASMANIA v MICHELLE LEE BRADLEY 11 OCTOBER 2019
and MATTHEW LEE PEARCE
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
The two defendants have pleaded guilty to a joint charge of cultivating a controlled plant for sale, while the defendant Ms Bradley has also pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled substance, namely cannabis. Pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code, I am also dealing with Ms Bradley’s pleas of guilty to using a controlled drug and possessing a thing used for the administration of a controlled drug, namely a smoking device. Further, she has pleaded guilty to firearms offences, being possessing a stolen firearm, possessing a firearm when not the holder of a licence, and failing to take precautions to ensure the safe keeping of firearms and ammunition. The defendants had been in a relationship of some 20 years standing. All the charges arise out of a search of their home on 7 August 2018. At the time of the search, Ms Bradley was present; Mr Pearce was not. Having had the search warrant read out to her, Ms Bradley volunteered that there was a quantity of cannabis in a shed on the property, adding that Mr Pearce grew it “for his back”. She then took police to the main bedroom and showed them a cardboard box on the floor of a walk-in wardrobe. That box contained 17 individual snap lock plastic bags containing cannabis bud of an average weight of 27 grams, making a total weight of nearly 442 grams. When pressed about why the cannabis was individually packaged, Ms Bradley told police it was so that the amount of cannabis Mr Pearce smoked was controlled. Close to the cardboard box was a shopping bag which contained a further eight individual plastic snap lock bags each containing cannabis bud in the same weight range, making a total weight of a little over 219 grams. Ms Bradley said she did not know it was there. In a drawer of a bedside table police found $3,750 in a brown paper bag, which Ms Bradley said belonged to her son. However, she admitted to police that she sold cannabis, to the extent of one or two bags to friends and when she did, she was unsure of the quantity sold. She charged between $100 to $150 a bag. She seems to have said nothing about the frequency. A search of the rest of the house and property revealed the following. In the kitchen police found a plastic snap lock bag which contained 27 grams of cannabis. Digital scales and smaller quantities of cannabis were also found in various rooms of the house. The total weight of the cannabis found in the house was 730.7 grams. In a shed in the backyard of the house, police found a hydroponic growing set-up. There were eight large mature cannabis plants. The shed was secured with a touch PIN padlock. Police also found a drying rack divided into five sections with each section containing cannabis bud. The total weight of the cannabis on the drying rack was 609 grams. Ms Bradley said that the contents of the shed were hers, and said she was the only person who knew the code. She admitted tending to the plants. Further, a caravan in the backyard was found to have been converted to a hydroponic grow room for cannabis cultivation. It contained grow lights and other growing paraphernalia. A grow tent containing 18 pots with cannabis seedlings in them was found. The caravan was locked but Ms Bradley provided the key. During the search Ms Bradley told police she smoked cannabis occasionally and had last smoked it on the previous day. Among the items found in the kitchen was a plastic smoking device. Both accused declined to be interviewed. The Crown puts the case against Ms Bradley on the basis that she was involved in the cultivation of the 26 cannabis plants with the intention or belief that some of it would be sold. The count of trafficking against her is based on the fact of possession of about 1,340 grams with the relevant intention or belief as to the sale of some of it. As against Mr Pearce, the Crown says that he was involved in the cultivation of the 26 cannabis plants, as well as what gave rise to the 609 grams of cannabis bud drying in the shed. It is asserted that it was his intention or belief that he or Ms Bradley intended to sell some of it. If the packaged cannabis from the house and the dried cannabis from the shed were sold in ounce bags at street value for $300 per bag, the financial gain is $14,200. If each of the 26 cannabis plants thrived, the estimated yield per plant is between 2 and 4 ounces, making a total yield of between 52 and 104 ounces. At the same street value, the total value of that is between $15,600 and $31.200. The overall total range is therefore between $29,800 and $45,400. During the search of the house in the en-suite bathroom of the main bedroom, police found a standard MFG self-loading .22 calibre pistol with a magazine in place. It was secreted in the vanity unit and some alterations had been made to the unit to accommodate it. It was found to be loaded, with one round in the breech and 7 in the magazine. Nearby, a clip lock container was found which contained 23 unfired .22 cartridges, as well as a discharged cartridge. The pistol was in working order. It was later established that it was stolen from a property in Glenorchy in October 2011.
Ms Bradley is now 40 years old. She has previous convictions for traffic offences and ones of dishonesty. She has convictions for drug possession charges, six in all, imposed in April 2012 and January 2013. For those matters she was fined on each occasion. Mr Pearce is now 35 years old. He has a reasonably lengthy record, but nothing of direct relevance. His record of traffic offending is bad, and there are offences of dishonesty and violence. Most recently, in August 2016, he was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for driving whilst disqualified, and a three month suspended sentence for assault dating from 2015 was activated. It cannot be said that he is otherwise of good character. The couple have had two children together; Ms Bradley has three from a previous relationship. Ms Bradley has spent her adult life caring for her children. She is a casual user of cannabis, as she admitted. Mr Pearce has limited education but has worked for most of his adult life as a labourer on sub-contract in the roofing industry. His work is sporadic and his income variable. In his mid-20s, he suffered an injury to his back. He went back to work at too early a time giving rise to complications. He found the prescription medication for his ongoing pain had unacceptable side-effects. He obtained much pain relief from cannabis. The genesis of this offending, I am told, is that he did not want to continue being involved in buying cannabis, and he decided to grow his own. The expected mortality rate proved to be an over estimation. Of course, it is accepted by both through their pleas that they intended or believed that some of the cannabis grown and in their possession was to be sold. Income derived, I am told, was to be used to defray household expenses. They have no assets of significance. Both have recently suffered a rather grave emotional setback. Ms Bradley’s son was recently murdered. They have become withdrawn and do not venture out much at all. As to the pistol, it is accepted that it was secreted, but it is said that as a result, it was not likely to be easily found by a burglar or interloper. In circumstances which were not explained to me, it came into Ms Bradley’s possession in 2011 and she just put it away. It is not clear whether she actually thought of handing it into the authorities but in any event she did not know what the word “amnesty” meant. I am told that each is remorseful. They have resolved not to return to growing cannabis. I take into account the pleas of guilty. The defendants were committed for trial on 28 November 2018. The indictment, which now distinguishes the criminal conduct of the pair, was filed on 24 September 2019 and the pleas entered within a week. Ms Bradley pleaded guilty to the other matters at an earlier time.
Parliament has made cannabis a controlled substance. There are good reasons for that. It has a range of adverse effects on mental and physical health. Commercial dealings in controlled substances have to be viewed seriously. Ms Bradley, you have prior convictions for non-commercial drug offences, while Mr Pearce you have no relevant prior convictions. I accept that the level of commercial activity contemplated was at a low level, and that primarily the cultivation and possession were for personal use. I accept that there was no intention to fund an affluent lifestyle. Because of the different charges and different personal histories, there are proper grounds for distinguishing between the two in relation to the drug offending. Ms Bradley, you of course also face the firearms charges which must also be regarded in a serious light. This was a stolen pistol, loaded and ready to fire, although well secreted in the house. There is simply no excuse at all for having it. I note that you, Ms Bradley have been assessed as not suitable for community service in light of severe depression and anxiety following the death of your son, and some physical ailments, while Mr Pearce, you have been assessed as suitable.
Ms Bradley, in relation to all the drug offences, you are convicted and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment the execution of which is suspended on condition you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years. In addition, I make a community corrections order for 12 months. Special conditions are that you submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer, you must undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer, and you must submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer. You will have to report to a probation officer at 114 Bathurst Street by 5pm next Tuesday, 15 October 2019. In relation to the firearms offences, you are convicted and fined the sum of $500, which will have to be paid within 28 days.
Mr Pearce, you are convicted of the crime and sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment the execution of which is suspended on condition you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 2 years. I do not consider any other order is necessary.
I order the forfeiture of the items listed on Property Seizure Record Receipt Nos 178707 – 178717 as specified in paragraph 27 of the Crown statement of facts filed on 27 September 2019. I order the forfeiture of the pistol and magazine, along with the container and ammunition all as seized by police on 7 August 2018. I also order the forfeiture of the $3,750 in cash seized by police.