STATE OF TASMANIA V NICOLE LOUISE COOPER ESTCOURT J
AND JARROD TROY MAYNE
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 6 SEPTEMBER 2019
The defendants Nicole Louise Cooper and Jarrod Troy Mayne have pleaded guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance, namely cannabis. Mr Mayne on the basis that he trafficked in cannabis by way of a business between 28 January 2017 and 3 July 2018, and Ms Cooper on the basis that she trafficked in a controlled substance on a single day, 3 July 2018, by possessing cannabis intending to sell it.
At the time of the commission of these crimes the defendants were in a relationship and resided together at Pontville.
On Tuesday 3 July 2018 members of Tasmania Police executed a drug related search warrant at their property. They found a small propagation tent containing 15 cannabis seedlings in a tray and a larger propagation tent containing five mature cannabis plants and four cannabis stalks with root balls attached, a back room growing 11 cannabis plants and another small propagation tent containing 21 cannabis seedlings and yet another larger propagation tent containing nine cannabis seedlings.
Mr Mayne arrived home at around 9:45am, and a snap-lock bag containing approximately 2 grams of cannabis was located in the centre console of Mr Mayne’s vehicle. Two black Nokia mobile phones belonging to Mr Mayne were seized.
A search of the house was then conducted with the further cannabis and drug-related items being located.
The total amount of cannabis product found at the defendant’s property (including bud, leaf and stalk) is 1576.9 grams.
The total number of cannabis plants located was 75, including the four that had already been stripped.
Video-recorded interviews were conducted with each of the defendants. The defendant Mayne stated, amongst other things, that he was a daily cannabis user and he had “given a bit” to his mates in ounce bags and did not receive anything in return for giving his mates cannabis. This is not necessarily accepted by the Crown.
The defendant Cooper stated, amongst other things, that she smokes between 1-3 cannabis “joints” per night, and that she had helped with the watering of the plants from time to time. She said that while they initially said they give the cannabis product away to friends she later admitted they get $250 per 28 gram bag, although they sell most of it “on tick”.
Police enquiries revealed an unusually high level of power consumption at the property, at more than twice the average household energy consumption in Tasmania. Aurora Energy business records reveal that the defendant Cooper opened a “Pay-As-You-Go” account in July 2014 and that usage began to escalate markedly from February 2015.
Each of the defendant’s mobile telephones were examined. A number of Facebook messages and SMS messages were located on the defendant Mayne’s mobile phone relating to the sale of drugs. These messages suggest the defendant would typically sell cannabis in 28 gram bags or in 7.5 gram amounts.
The total value of the cannabis product seized, assuming all of it were to be sold, is approximately between $3250 and $4860. On a similar basis the total value of the cannabis plants seized if each were to produce 4 – 6 ounces per plant is between $72,000 and $108,000, depending on the weights by which it were sold.
Therefore, the total potential value of all the cannabis seized, if it were all to be sold, is approximately $112,860.
The Crown asserts that the defendant Mayne operated a drug-dealing business trafficking in cannabis over the period 28 January 2017 to 3 July 2018, and over this period made actual sales to at least 10 individual buyers.
The Crown asserts that the defendant Cooper trafficked in cannabis by possessing the cannabis plants and product located at the house on the 3 July 2018 with the intention of selling some or all of it.
Based on the defendant’s admissions that they make at least $500 from the sale of cannabis per week, the defendant Mayne has sold up to $36,000 worth of cannabis over the period of the indictment.
The defendant Mayne has a prior conviction for a minor drug offence, possession of a controlled plant, in February 2008. A conviction was recorded for that offence
The defendant Cooper has no prior convictions.
The defendant Mayne is 36 years old. He has been in a long term relationship with Ms Cooper and they have a 13 year old son. He is in full-time employment. He has a good industrial record. He was introduced to cannabis at High School and began a heavy user ultimately. In 2017 he decided to grow his own, he grew initially for his own personal use and if there was any left-over he would sell it to his friends. He then ran out and bought bags of cannabis which were found by police.
The defendant Cooper is 34 years old. She works part-time, 22 hours per week at a College. She has no prior convictions for drugs. She has a good industrial record, or had a good industrial record until her son was born, and then she became a stay at home mum for about six years. About five years ago she was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. Anti-depressants did not seem to help and she began using cannabis, becoming a heavy user.
As to trafficking in cannabis, Wood J said in Sweetman v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 5:
“I detected in the appellant’s submissions a grievance that the sentence was heavy, given the trafficking related to cannabis. It may be thought that leniency was warranted given the nature of the drug compared to other illegal drugs. Certainly in the past, some people have regarded cannabis as a ‘soft drug’ and have not seen it as particularly harmful or potentially dangerous to the user.
However, it is now well-known that cannabis has a range of destructive effects on the physical and mental health of users. Previously held views or assumptions about cannabis are completely at odds with well-established empirical evidence and knowledge about the adverse effects of cannabis and its association with serious short term and long term harm.
In R v Nguyen [2006] NSWCCA 389, McClellan CJ at CL at [54] referred to previously held assumptions about cannabis and stated, ‘It is now recognised that marijuana can have very serious consequences for users with destructive potential for the lives of young persons.’
To make an obvious point, a sentencing court’s evaluation of the seriousness of offending cannot reflect out-dated views or complacency which may persist in the community about the impact of cannabis use.”
While, its impact on an individual offender is not well understood in the community a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment remains quite a severe sentence. It has consequences, and such a sentence has been imposed in many cases similar to the present, particularly where there are no significant relevant prior convictions.
The level of criminality in this matter is arguably slightly higher in the case of the defendant Mayne, but the defendant Cooper was fully aware of the grow rooms and the sales of cannabis. They have both pleaded guilty and are to be given credit for that although their pleas of guilty were not entered at the earliest time. Both of them were co-operative with police.
Both defendants are convicted of each of the offences to which they have pleaded guilty and Mr Mayne is sentenced to a single sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that the he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 2 years.
Ms Cooper is sentenced to a period of 6 months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that the she commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 2 years.
Pursuant to s 38 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 I make an order that the following items be forfeited to the Crown:
On property seizure record (receipt) 170394: items 2 and 5;
On property seizure record (receipt) 170395: items 12 and 13;
On property seizure record (receipt) 170396: items 16, 17, 18a and 19;
On property seizure record (receipt) 170397: items 24, 27 and 28;
On property seizure record (receipt) 170398: items 29, 30, 31, and 32;
On property seizure record (receipt) 170399: items 36 and 38;
On property seizure record (receipt) 170400: items 43 – 46;
On property seizure record (receipt) 140293: items 47 – 55;
On property seizure record (receipt) 140294: items 56, 58 – 63;
On property seizure record (receipt) 140295: items 64 – 67, 69 – 72;
On property seizure record (receipt) 140296: items 73, 75, and 76; and
On property seizure record (receipt) 140297: item 77.