STATE OF TASMANIA v MARK RAYMOND ROLAND 20 OCTOBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mark Raymond Roland, you were found guilty by unanimous jury verdict of trafficking in controlled substances, namely methylamphetamine, cocaine, MDMA, cannabis and 1,4-butanediol.
The Crown case was conducted on the basis described in Giretti v Giretti (1986) 24 ACrim R 112. In such a case, the allegation is not of a specific act on a specific date, but that the criminal activity has a regularity and continuity that would enable it to be properly described as the conduct of an ongoing business. The jury need not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any specific incident, but it must be satisfied of the existence of a systematic and regular business. Thus, it follows from the verdict that the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that for a period during the dates particularised in the indictment, namely 8 August 2021 until 12 May 2022, you were engaged in a continuous drug selling activity of a commercial and systematic kind.
To the extent that the facts do not emerge from the verdicts, it is my responsibility to make findings of fact for sentencing purposes. I may only make findings adverse to you if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt they have been proved, and I may only make findings of fact in your favour if they are proved on the balance of probabilities.
The State’s case was that you trafficked in all the substances at various times during the period 8 August 2021 until 12 May 2022. During that time, you were living at [address redacted]. Police searched that residence on 8 August 2021. At the residence was the main house, together with a substantial outbuilding which contained your tattoo studio, an area which was described as the office, and a workshop area. On 8 August, police searched the outbuilding and located a mobile phone. In the settings of the mobile phone, you were identified as the user. There were a number of applications on the phone which also identified you as the user. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were the primary user of that mobile phone. The mobile phone contained numerous messages on various applications, including encrypted applications, consistent with you selling a variety of illicit substances to several users.
The phone messages were critical evidence. They clearly indicated drug sales. The only person referred to by name in the messages was you. The content of the messages was consistent with you being the sender and receiver of the messages. For example, there are references in the messages to your then girlfriend and to you inviting people to stay at [address redacted], which is consistent with what you said was happening at the time. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were involved in the message exchanges and there is no doubt that much of the discussion within the messages was directed at the buying and selling of drugs. You gave evidence on the trial and accepted that you used that phone, but you also suggested many other people used the phone, and you suggested that the main of the messages must have been sent by others. As to the messages you could not shy away from, namely the ones that referred to you by your name or nickname, you claimed they related to the sale of a supplement called ” Phenylethylamine” which is a legal supplement which you claimed became popular during the COVID period. You said the messages which obviously related to sales of a substance, related to that, and not illicit drugs. Without hesitation, I reject your evidence as to that. Quite frankly, it presented as fanciful and entirely contrived.
On 12 May 2022, police conducted another search at your residence. This time, they found a further substantial quantity of drugs, a quantity of cash, and a firearm hidden away in a void at the rear fence of your property.
In short, I am satisfied that on a regular basis between 8 August 2021 and 12 May 2022, you were heavily involved in the trade of illicit substances. It is obvious from the messages that [address redacted] was well known as a place where people could attend to purchase a variety of illegal drugs. It is noteworthy that many of the people with whom you were communicating via the messages, were people well known to the illegal drug trade on the Northwest Coast. I am satisfied that during this period you were personally responsible for affecting many, many drug transactions. Your business operated on the basis that you would source various illicit substances and then on-sell them in various quantities to either other sellers or end users. Within the messages, there is reference to selling at various times, all the drugs particularised on the indictment, including methylamphetamine, cocaine, MDMA, cannabis and 1,4-butanediol. There are messages which discuss the pricing of various illicit substances, and discussion about obtaining reduced rates for larger purchases. There is discussion about the “going price” for purchasing larger quantities of various substances. There is discussion about having sold out of substances and having to “restock”. No one could read those messages and sensibly conclude they relate to anything other than the conduct of an ongoing business dealing in the sale of illicit substances.
It is impossible to determine in any precise way, the total scale of the business or the quantities involved, or how much money you made from it, however I am satisfied that over this nearly 12-month period, you sold drugs on a regular basis and that you profited from selling those drugs. I am satisfied that in the main, the cash found at your residence was a direct consequence of drug sales. I do not accept that you were making any profit in the real sense from your tattoo business.
In addition to the messages and the items found during the respective searches, there is other evidence consistent with you operating a drug trafficking business. The premises at [address redacted] was subject to very heavy security, going well beyond what one might expect at usual residential premises. You had a number of security cameras and motion sensors set up. You had various screens set up within the outbuildings which allowed you to monitor the surveillance being captured by the respective cameras. You have large fences surrounding the property and gates which were locked. On top of the fences, were bird spikes which prevented anyone from climbing over the fences. Additionally, you had quantities of cash and illicit substances hidden in various places throughout the property, including in water features, rock walls and behind fence lines. I am satisfied the premises were fortified as I have described so you could protect the array of drugs that were hidden in the various places throughout the property and monitor those who were entering the premises.
Also found during the searches was a large quantity of small snap-lock bags. The size of these bags was not consistent with general household use but was consistent with drug sales. Electronic scales and various other items consistent with the sale of drugs were also found during the search. You had bundles of cash hidden within Cryovac bags and concealed in various places at the property. You claimed in your evidence that you did not trust banks and that much of this money came from legitimate sources. I reject your evidence as to that and note that you produced no material consistent with your claims. If your tattoo parlour was operating as a legitimate business, tax records, for example, would have been readily obtainable. Again, none were produced by you during your evidence. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the money located was proceeds of drug sales. The fact that you made over $40,000 from drug sales in less than a 12 month period is indicative that this was far from a menial drug trafficking business.
You are now 57 years of age. This is third occasion upon which you have been convicted for trafficking in illicit substances. On 25 August 2015, you were sentenced for the crime of trafficking in a controlled substance to three years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months. On that occasion, the substances involved were amphetamine, methylamphetamine, cannabis and alprazolam. Your conviction on that occasion was also on a Giretti basis, namely that you were engaged in a continuous drug selling activity of a commercial and systematic kind. That drug selling activity continued for a three-year period from between 2010 and early 2013, although Pearce J found you only trafficked in alprazolam for a period of about six months in 2012. Pearce J was satisfied that during that period, you were responsible for selling drugs on “hundreds of occasions”, and that [address redacted] was a place “where people routinely went to buy drugs”. It is of significance that there is a marked similarity between the trafficking that Pearce J sentenced you for, and this matter. It is aggravating that you have once again established a drug trafficking business, pedalling an array of illicit substances. Your moral culpability, in my assessment, is high. You are a person who apparently has no qualms about profiting from creating misery and harm within our community.
In December 2023, I sentenced you for three counts of trafficking following a jury trial. The first count related to trafficking in N-ethylphentylone. The second count related to trafficking in 1,4-butanediol and the third count related to you trafficking in MDMA, methylamphetamine and cocaine. The State’s case in respect to each of the trafficking charges was that you were in possession of the respective substances with the intention of selling them on 2 July 2020.
The finding of guilt in respect to the second count was overturned on appeal. A verdict of acquittal was substituted. When the matter was remitted for re-sentencing, you were sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment, again with an order that you not be eligible for parole until you had served one half of that period of imprisonment.
There were a number of similarities between where the illicit substances and cash were found during the search on 2 July 2020, and where illicit substances were found on this occasion. You had secreted illicit substances and cash in cryovac bags and hidden them within your backyard and in rock walls within the water feature. It is obvious then, that your involvement with illicit substances and your commercial dealings in illicit substances, is long standing.
You began using illicit drugs in your late teens after you became involved with a motorcycle club. You have, over the years, been a heavy user of many different substances, including cocaine, amphetamine, methylamphetamine, MDMA and cannabis. In more recent years, your use has been limited to methylamphetamine. I am told that since your release from custody in August 2025, there has been a meaningful change in your attitude towards the on-going use of illicit substances. You have actively sought out drug and alcohol counselling and completed courses directed at abstaining from illicit substances.
You have been subject to very strict bail conditions since February 2023. These conditions have included a requirement that you permit Tasmania Police to enter your residence, and the conditions have also limited your access to telecommunication devices and limited people who are permitted to enter your residence. You have been compliant with those bail conditions and have been conscientious about amending them if the need arose.
I am told that you have been subject to some random drug testing since your release from custody in August 2025 and it was negative to the presence of any illicit substances. You are determined to avoid a return to the use of illicit substances. Whilst that is admirable, and I acknowledge that you have been working hard to achieve that, given your very long involvement in the use and trade of illicit substances, whether that can be sustained in the long term remains to be seen. For example, I am told that as recently as February this year, police were involved in intercepting a parcel of illicit substances addressed to [address redacted], and whilst no one has been charged in respect to that matter, it is most concerning that your address continues to be associated with illicit substances. It is relevant to the question of whether it is likely that you will be able to stay away from illicit substances and therefore the weight I ought to attach to the question of rehabilitation in this sentencing exercise.
Given your age and long association with illicit drugs, I am not of the view, that it carries much weight, although I do note that you are hopeful of completing some training to become a “lived experience” advocate and assist people with drug addiction. It can only be hoped that that provides you with some motivation to sustain change. That said, you continue to have very little insight into the seriousness of your offending. You maintained during the trial that you were not engaged in the sale of illicit substances, despite the fact the messages so obviously indicated that you were. As I have already indicated, I found your explanations fanciful. They were clearly directed at endeavouring to explain the inexplicable.
Trafficking in illicit substances is an evil trade, and you have been engaged in it, on and off, for many years. Traffickers prey on the vulnerability and human frailty of others for profit. You have been prepared to profit from other people’s misery over many years. Your moral culpability, as I have indicated, is particularly high. Deterrence, both personal and general, and punishment are significant sentencing considerations. It is aggravating, that this offending occurred whilst you were on bail for the offending for which you were sentenced in December 2023. That underlines the lack of remorse and insight that you possess and weighs against the likelihood of successful rehabilitation.
In my view, there is very little that mitigates this offending. I accept that it occurred some four years ago, but there was a need to wait a period to conduct the current trial after the matter for which you were sentenced in December 2023 had proceeded to trial. Whilst it cannot be said that the delay was in any way your fault, it is simply part of the consequence of you having trafficked in illicit substances on more than one occasion. In my view, the nature, scale and extent of your drug trafficking demands a substantial sentence of imprisonment. You are not entitled to the mitigation a plea of guilty may have attracted. You have demonstrated no insight or remorse and have shown a complete indifference to the harm your criminal conduct has caused.
I make the following orders. Mark Raymond Roland, you are convicted of the crime of trafficking. You are sentenced to imprisonment for two years and nine months, commencing 24 August 2026. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 20 months of that sentence. I make an order pursuant to s 11 of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act that the sum of $40,790, seized by Tasmania Police, be forfeited to the State of Tasmania as tainted property. I am satisfied that those monies were the result of you selling illicit substances.