WATSON M T

STATE OF TASMANIA v CATHY-LEE HAHN            3 JULY 2019

and MARSHALL TODD WATSON

COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE                            BLOW CJ

 Ms Hahn and Mr Watson have pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in a controlled substance.  The substance was cannabis.  Over a period of about seven months, from about 1 April 2017 to 1 November 2017, Ms Hahn operated a business selling edible cannabis products and mailing them to customers.  Mr Watson, her partner, assisted her in that business.  Ms Hahn kept records of every sale.  The total turnover of the business in the seven months that it operated was $47,002.65.

Mr Watson originally started making edible cannabis products for a relative who was terminally ill.  Other people enquired about the products, and Ms Hahn subsequently went into business producing them.  Police officers searched the couple’s home on 2 October 2017, and found a large variety of edible cannabis products, including fudge, caramel slice, cannabis butter, coconut balls, gummy snakes, gummy bears, jerky, shortbread, fruit rollup, rice bubble slice, cornflake cups, and caramel cups.  Ms Hahn was then interviewed by police officers, co-operated with them, and made detailed admissions.  She did not stop trading.  Police officers intercepted three parcels on 4 October 2017 and two more three weeks later.  They conducted a second search on 1 November 2017 and again found various edible cannabis products.  Again, Ms Hahn was interviewed, co-operated, and made substantial admissions.  This time Mr Watson was also interviewed.  Police officers found messages on his mobile phone indicating that he assisted in the business.  He admitted that he had been assisting his partner by receiving messages from customers, packing products, printing stickers, recording and checking orders, and receiving some payments into his bank account.

Ms Hahn was 33 when she commenced operating this business, was 34 when she was compelled to close it down, and is now 36.  She has no significant prior convictions.  She and Mr Watson have been together for 10 years.  They have three children.  They live in a rented property.  They have been there for six years.  Ms Hahn has a good industrial record.  She worked in management roles in the transport industry before she became a mother.  For the last two years she has been employed in the seafood industry.  She has been assessed as suitable for a home detention order and for community service.

Mr Watson is 11 months younger than his partner, and is now 35.  He has no prior drug convictions, but received wholly suspended sentences for assaults committed in 2005 and 2014.  In June 2016 he was placed on probation for 18 months in relation to a number of summary offences, including the assaults to which the second suspended sentence related and some breaches of an interim family violence order.  As a result of the first police search, a magistrate fined him $800 for possessing and selling cannabis and possessing a smoking device.  He was a full-time parent during the period of offending, and has been ever since.  He also assists his mother with her day to day living.  She lives near him.

Over 400 transactions are recorded in Ms Hahn’s business records.  Most were for amounts under $100, but there were quite a few for higher amounts, including some for several hundred dollars.  Ms Hahn charged much less than other sellers that she had heard about.  She and Mr Watson did not accumulate any assets or savings as a result of this enterprise.  Much of their takings went into the purchase of ingredients. The rest went on household expenses. They are not a wealthy couple.  Ms Hahn receives Centrelink payments in addition to her earnings, which fluctuate from fortnight to fortnight.

The Crown have applied for a pecuniary penalty order in the sum of $47,000 pursuant to the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993.  I do not have a discretion to order the payment of a lower amount.  Because of the family and financial circumstances of this couple, I will not make the order sought.

Both Ms Hahn and Mr Watson have pleaded guilty, and thus saved the State the cost and inconvenience of a trial.  Mr Watson indicated a willingness to plead guilty in July 2018.

Although the trafficking activities of this couple amounted in law to a joint criminal enterprise, Ms Hahn was the principal offender, and must receive a heavier sentence than Mr Watson. Because he has already been fined for related summary offences, I think the appropriate penalty for him is a short wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment.  For Ms Hahn, I think the most appropriate course is for me to impose a home detention order, and also to require her to perform some community service.  If I had not been able to impose a home detention order, I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment, but I would have suspended all of it.  I regard it as very significant that she continued to traffic in edible cannabis products after the first police search, although I accept that threats were made by customers who wanted their orders filled.  In making the home detention order, I am expecting that her probation officer will permit her to leave her home to go to work whenever her employer has work for her. Since her working hours vary, it is not practicable for me to specify times when she need not be at home.  Since Mr Watson does not drive, it is possible that the probation officer might need to consider giving her permission to be absent from her home at specified times to do household shopping.

Cathy-Lee Hahn, I convict you and make a home detention order for an operational period of three months.  The full conditions of the order will be set out in a document that you will be given.  They include conditions, all of which apply for three months, as follows:

  • You must not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment.
  • You must reside at [address].
  • You must be there at all times, except when you are not there for a “relevant reason” specified in s 42AB(4) of the Sentencing Act That includes going somewhere with your probation officer’s permission.
  • You must permit a police officer, probation officer or prescribed officer to enter those premises.
  • You must permit a police officer to conduct a search of the premises, conduct a frisk search of you, and take a sample of any substance found on the premises or on your person.
  • You must submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device.
  • If directed to do so by a police officer, probation officers or prescribed officers, you must submit to a breath test, urine test or other test for the presence of an illicit drug.

I also make a community correction order with a condition that you must within six months satisfactorily perform 42 hours’ community service as directed by a probation officer or a supervisor.

I direct you to report to the Office of Community Corrections in Launceston immediately for the purpose of these orders.

Marshall Todd Watson, I convict you and sentence you to one month’s imprisonment, wholly suspended on condition that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 18 months.