Director of Public Prosecutions v Williamson

[2019] VCC 615

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-18-00383

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

THOMAS WILLIAMSON

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE COHEN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Trial: 18-22 February 2019 Plea:  19 April 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Williamson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VCC 615

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  SENTENCING

Catchwords:  Jury verdict of guilty on cultivation of commercial quantity cannabis; trafficking cannabis; deal proceeds of crime and theft of electricity

Legislation Cited:  Sentencing Act 1991, s5(2H), 44
Cases Cited:
Sentence:  TES 38 months; NPP 20 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms T. Saville (On Trial & Plea) Mr D. Hannan (On Sentence)	Solicitors for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. van de Wiel QC (On Trial & Plea) Ms S. Vardy (On Sentence)	Balmer & Associates

HER HONOUR: 

1Thomas Williamson, you have been found guilty by a jury on one count each of cultivation of not less than a commercial quantity of cannabis, trafficking in cannabis, dealing with the proceeds of crime, and theft of electricity.

2The circumstances giving rise to these charges were examined during the trial, and I shall only summarise what I take to be the key parts to explain the nature and extent of the offences.

3They all arise from what police found on executing a search warrant at your home in Warrandyte on 14 September 2017.  At that stage, you were living there alone, your wife and child having moved out during the preceding months as your marriage was breaking down.

4In each of two double garages attached to the house, one on each side and accessible from inside the house, there had been installed a sophisticated hydroponic setup for the cultivation of cannabis.  In one garage, there were two growing tents, and in the other garage, two growing tents and a drying tent. 
In each of the four growing tents, police found cannabis plants growing, each tent being at a different stage of development of the plants, and the last having two mature plants which had some branch ends removed. In total, there were 79 plants with a combined weight of 36.11 kilograms. 
That combined weight constituted a commercial quantity, as the threshold for a commercial quantity by weight is 25 kilograms.  These circumstances are the basis of Charge 1, cultivating cannabis in no less than a commercial quantity. 

5There was also an electrical bypass installed in the garage closest to the electricity meter, and wired to the other garage, which had the effect of avoiding the metering of the large quantities of electricity that would have been used for the operation of the extensive hydroponic systems and timers.  That is the basis of Charge 4, theft of electricity. 

6Also found in a room of your house called the "entertainment" or "TV room", leading to the second garage, was a large orange plastic barrel which contained 10.64 kilograms of harvested but still fresh flowering heads of cannabis plants. That quantity of cannabis was not included in the quantity of that drug the subject of Charge 1.  It is the subject of Charge 2 of trafficking cannabis, the prosecution case being that you trafficked it by having it in your possession for the purpose of sale.

7Charge 3, of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime, was based on the fact that police found quantities of cash in your house totalling $37,323.95.  Although the prosecution insisted on including under this charge some $523.95 found in your bedroom, some of it as coins in money boxes, more significantly there was $30,000, made up of three bundles each of $10,000 in $100 notes, all hidden behind a drawer of a wine rack in the lounge room, and $100 and $50 notes, totalling $6,800, in that drawer.

8I must assess the objective seriousness of each of these offences, and your personal culpability in relation to them. 

9The cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis is both objectively and subjectively the most serious of these charges; that is, Charge 1.  The objective seriousness is reflected in the maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. The weight of growing plants, excluding roots, was some 11 kilograms over the 25-kilogram threshold by weight for a commercial quantity.  While clearly over the threshold, I regard that amount as still relatively modest for a commercial quantity, compared with many cases that come before this court where there has been hydroponic cultivation in a residential setup.  And it is still a small fraction, about 14 per cent, of the next threshold, for a large commercial quantity.

10The equipment and setup showed considerable sophistication, with large exhaust fans and venting, PVC piping for reticulation of water and nutrients, and extensive sets of timers.  There were grow charts on the back of the door of one garage.  The fact of the electricity bypass also indicates sophistication and intended ongoing use.

11there is no evidence that you personally installed or set up this equipment, nor, as your counsel submitted, whether the equipment had been used elsewhere previously.

12The charge is limited to the occurrence of the offence on the single day it was found, but I am satisfied that the extent of installation and equipment, and the progressive stages of growth in different tents indicates that it was not a brief episode of cultivation, or not intended to be.

13I regard the objective seriousness as relatively low by quantity, but above the lowest level for possible cultivations of a commercial quantity by reason of the extent and sophistication of the installations.

14Turning to your subjective role, there is no evidence that you personally installed or set up this equipment, nor, as your counsel submitted, whether the equipment had been used elsewhere previously. The trial was run on the basis that you allowed someone else to install it in your house, and you  did not intend there to be as much as a commercial quantity.  You said you believed there were to be no more than 28 plus 18 plants, being the numbers of plants in fact found in the two tents in one garage.  This evidence implied that you only knew commercial quantity by number of plants - namely, 100 - and you claimed not to know that there were plants growing in any of the tents in the second garage.

15The jury, by its verdict, must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you intended or knew that there was likely to be more than 25 kilograms' weight of growing plants.  In light of photographs you had taken of plants flourishing in just one of the tents some months earlier, although those plants are not specifically the subject of any charge here, it is not hard to see why the jury excluded the proposition that you did not intend the plants to exceed
25 kilograms in weight.

16During the trial, you also maintained - and the prosecution cannot prove otherwise - that you did not personally install the hydroponic system. 
You maintained that you had allowed it to be installed and operated in your home by a person whom you will only identify by a first name, "Aaron." 
The reason you say you allowed this was to enable this Aaron to produce cannabis oil, which would be supplied free to your mother and to a close family friend, Mr Fisher, who had introduced your mother to its use and introduced Aaron to you for this purpose.

17Both your mother and Mr Fisher had used cannabis oil to relieve symptoms after treatment for cancer, and Mr Fisher for other ailments.  Your belief that cannabis oil could be useful medicinally or therapeutically was also developed in the wider context that, unfortunately, within your family there had been other sufferers of cancer, including your late father and grandmother. Mr Fisher gave evidence in the trial that it was at his request that you met with the person, Aaron, who wanted to produce cannabis oil, and this was aimed at obtaining a free supply of such oil to him; that is, to Mr Fisher and to your mother.  Your mother gave evidence of her use of that substance, but that she had no knowledge that you were in fact cultivating cannabis at your home, or anywhere.

18Although there were papers and notebooks found in your study indicating that you were aware of details of growing cycles of these plants and amounts of equipment needed, and you had taken photos of plants growing in one tent some months earlier, I sentence you on the basis that you personally had not installed and were not controlling this cultivation. I also accept that the initial reason you allowed the cultivation of cannabis in your home was for the ultimate purpose of enabling cannabis oil to be produced, and obtaining a free supply of it for your mother and Mr Fisher.

19However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this was your sole motivation throughout, nor that there was no other ultimate benefit to you, even though I can make no finding beyond reasonable doubt that there was. You were not asked about whether the person you call Aaron was paying you in any way, reimbursing any expenses, or providing any other benefits to you. 
It seems extraordinary to me that your mother knew nothing of your having this cultivation occurring at your home if it was mainly for her ultimate benefit, and it had clearly been there for some months.  There is no evidence that any cannabis oil was ultimately produced from any cannabis plants grown at your premises.

20This was an extensive and sophisticated hydroponic installation, and even accepting that you did not personally install and operate it, you must take responsibility for enabling it.  You clearly knew that it was illegal. There is no evidence that you had made any enquiries as to any alternative possible ways of obtaining cannabis oil for therapeutic use for your mother or family friend, even though, before this installation seems to have commenced, the legislation had been changed to potentially allow legal production and medical use.

21I accept that your motivation was at least partly for altruistic purposes, and
I find that it was not solely for profit.  But I am not satisfied that there was to be no benefit at all to you beyond the provision of that oil free to your mother and Mr Fisher.

22From the evidence during the trial, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you well knew that it was illegal to be allowing this cultivation of cannabis, and I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were aware of the extent of plants growing, and that that included both and not just one garage.  I agree with the jury's verdict that you must have known that the plants growing as at the date they were found would weigh more than 25 kilograms.

23There was a further 10.64 kilograms of fresh, female flowering heads, found in a barrel in the TV or entertainment room in your house, which you acknowledged you knew was present.  That was the basis of the separate charge of trafficking cannabis, that being Charge 2. The prosecution based its case for trafficking on you having that amount of cannabis material in your possession for sale.  No actual sales were proven, and there was no evidence of intended individual sales, with no items found such as scales or wrappings. I sentence you on the basis that the jury found you guilty on this charge on the basis that had been put by the prosecution; namely, that you were in possession of that material for sale.  The presence of some $36,000 or more cash hidden in and behind a drawer was relied upon as indicative of sale of cannabis.

24You chose to give evidence in the trial, and when asked what you intended to do with that material in the barrel, your answer was that you “did not intend to do anything with it”.  You did not elaborate in your evidence-in-chief, and in cross-examination you were not asked the reason for its presence or what you intended to happen to it. The jury must have rejected that it was reasonably possible that you had it in your possession for a purpose other than sale, even if the sale was for making it into oil.  I sentence you on the basis that the jury must have rejected that it was in your possession in your house for a wholly altruistic purpose which did not involve its sale.

25The penalty for trafficking is 15 years' imprisonment.  That is a reflection of the objective seriousness of various types of trafficking of drugs.  The quantity of flowering heads, the most concentrated source of the active agent from cannabis plants known as “THC”, was considerable. On the other hand, as it was found on the same day as the growing plants,
I take into account that it could also have been included under Charge 1 and not as a separate charge.  There will therefore be more concurrency in the sentence on that charge than had Charge 2 of trafficking stood alone, or been based on circumstances other than that material was found in your possession in that form on the same day as growing plants, and by implication, being the product of earlier harvested plants.

26The quantity of cannabis material in the barrel places the offending above the least serious instances for this offence, but I assess your culpability for this offence as much lower than that of a person who had this much cannabis in possession for sale at optimal prices and to maximise profit.

27I turn next to Charge 3, based on the cash found on the premises.  In your evidence, you denied that it was from sale of cannabis and denied it was from any other criminal conduct, but you offered no explanation of its source or for its presence. Apart from puttage that it was from sale of cannabis, there was no cross-examination of you as to the source or purpose for that cash, or the reason for its being in or behind the drawer in the lounge room.  During the plea hearing, your counsel said that when giving evidence, you had documents with you in anticipation of being asked more about the source and purpose of that money.

28Whether or not the prosecutor's failure to ask about that was a tactical decision at the time - and clearly, your own counsel's failure to ask further about it was a tactical decision - the jury's verdict indicates that the jury excluded that this cash, or at least the substantial part of it, being the $30,000 behind the drawer, had innocent origin.

29The jury must have must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was the proceeds of crime, whether trafficking in cannabis or cannabis oil, as there was no evidence of any other illegal activity which could have been its source. 
I must sentence you on the basis of the jury's decision, and not some explanation offered for the real source of that money on the plea hearing.

30The maximum penalty for negligently dealing with proceeds of crime is 15 years' imprisonment.  That reflects considerable objective seriousness, but I regard this instance as relatively low in the possible range of seriousness for this offence, although the cash sums found were considerable.

31Further, I take into account that there was overlap in the use of the evidence of the cash found with Charge 2; that is, it went to prove the charge of trafficking by way of being in possession of the material for sale.  It is not uncommon for some evidence to apply to more than one charge in a trial, but I consider that there should be concurrency of the sentence on this charge to reflect the way that the evidence in that regard was used.

32Turning to Charge 4, the maximum penalty for theft is 10 years' imprisonment.  I regard the electricity bypass as one of some sophistication, including that the wiring in one garage was directed through roof space to the other garage.  However risky it had been for the person who had installed it, and that is not alleged to have been you personally, that does not detract from the seriousness of your being party to such theft.

33There has been no calculation made of the value of electricity stolen, but the description during the trial of a variation in measurement of output in amps at the street end from that on the house meter at the time of inspection, satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that even on the single day the subject of the charge, the amount of electricity stolen was not insignificant.

34You denied knowing of the presence of the bypass and said that you thought your electricity bills included all electricity used.  The jury must have excluded your version as even a reasonable  possibility.  I must sentence you on the basis of the Jury verdict and any way did not believe your evidence denying knowledge of the presence of the bypass. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there would not have been such a bypass installed totally without your knowledge.

35Further, if you had truly believed that all of the electricity being used to run the hydroponic system, the extent of which you had seen, was included in your electricity bills, you would have had some discussion or arrangements for it to be reimbursed by the person called Aaron.  Although you still do not admit knowledge of the bypass, I am satisfied that you did know of it and knew that electricity used to run the installations was not being metered and therefore not charged or paid for.

36You pleaded not guilty and stood trial on each of these charges.  It was your legal right to do that, and you receive no greater punishment for doing so.  However, you do not receive any of the leniency to which you would have been entitled had you pleaded guilty to all or even some of these charges.

37I take into account that the trial was run to test key issues only, and that many facts were admitted which shortened the trial and reduced the number of witnesses necessary.  That does show some willingness to facilitate the course of the trial and the justice process. However, while you acknowledged allowing the cannabis to be grown at your house, you did not accept responsibility for the extent of the cultivation and denied knowledge of the electricity bypass, and of any of the cannabis in the barrel being for sale.

38I find that your acknowledgement of wrongdoing is limited, and you do not accept the consequences to the community of the illegal cultivation and dissemination of cannabis.  I accept that you now deeply regret your conduct in allowing this cultivation and the ancillary matters to occur at your house, because of the very serious consequences to you, directly and indirectly.  But that is not the same as mitigatory remorse or contrition.

39I turn now to your personal circumstances.  You are now aged 35, and although separated from your wife and your young daughter, you are still part of a wider, supportive extended family.  You were living with your mother and stepfather whilst awaiting trial. I have read a reference from one sister, herself a lawyer, who recognises the seriousness of your offending while clearly remaining supportive of you and hoping for you to have the opportunity to make a good life for yourself in the future.  I have also read the letter provided by your mother.

40I am told that although your parents separated when you were a teenager, you were still raised in the knowledge of a supportive extended family.  You were very close, apparently, to your grandmother.

41I am told that although you did not excel at school, and after beginning an apprenticeship, you did not complete you then found an interest in real estate, and became a fully licensed real estate agent. You apparently engaged in partnership in a successful real estate business for a number of years, which business had a considerable number of employees. However that business ultimately failed, after you had allowed your wife's father and other relatives to become involved. By the time of this offending, that business was no longer operating.  The sad reality for you is that it is likely that you will lose your real estate agent's licence as a result of these convictions, and quite possibly not be authorised in the future to even engage as an employee in a real estate agency

42Following your arrest on these charges, when bailed, you moved to live, as
I have said, with your mother and stepfather. I assume that your house at Warrandyte was the subject of a restraining order under the Confiscations Act pending completion of the trial, although I was not specifically told that.  During submissions, it was implied that that house is regarded as lost to you.  As the charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis is an automatic forfeiture offence under the Confiscations Act,
I assume that if you still hold any interest in that property, that interest will be forfeited.

43To your credit, you found alternative employment whilst awaiting trial, and
I expect that you will find work on your release from prison, even if not in your previous field.  You seem intelligent enough, and industrious enough, to make a new career for yourself, and to re-establish a responsible and productive life for yourself.

44I am also informed that awaiting trial, you had been trying to cope with what became the total breakdown of your marriage, and your separation from your young daughter, to whom all family and friends who provided references describe you as devoted. Although the consequences of you being found guilty on these charges and facing a term of imprisonment have led you to not actively initiate proceedings to have more contact with your daughter, I understand that it is your aim to ultimately have an active part in her life.  It is to be hoped that this prosecution and its result will not be used against you to deny your child appropriate contact with you or her grandmother.

45I have been provided with a psychological report from Mr Steven Gault, who examined you for the purposes of this sentence.  While outlining your personal history and circumstances, he found you cooperative throughout interviews.  He found no signs of serious mental illness at the time he assessed you, nor in your past, and noted that you had never sought or received any treatment for a mental illness throughout your life.

46He found your mood when he examined you within normal range.  He could find nothing to indicate that you were suffering from any mental illness at the time of the offending, nor since, and nothing to indicate that you have a mental illness likely to adversely affect your ability to cope with imprisonment. All of these findings are beneficial for your future.  However, they mean that legal principles that might have required some leniency in your sentence had you been affected by a mental health disorder are not enlivened in this case.

47Through what you told Mr Gault, you have acknowledged that what you did in allowing cannabis to be cultivated in your home was wrong, although you do not acknowledge wrongdoing in relation to the other charges.

48Whilst you cannot claim the benefit of having no prior criminal history, yours does not reflect entrenched nor frequent offending.  In April 2012, now some seven years ago, you were before Ringwood Magistrates' Court on several offences including two charges of possessing drugs of dependence and several charges involving possession and failing to correctly store two guns and ammunition.  I am told that one was a gun that had been your father's and which you had never used, but had in a box under your bed rather than adequately stored, and there was some ammunition with it. You received substantial fines with convictions for those offences, but they were some five years earlier than the offending that now brings you before me. 
And the current offending, although more objectively serious, does not appear to be a continuation nor escalation of those prior matters. I am told that you are not a frequent user, nor addicted to drugs.  I do not regard your prior offending as of particular relevance to the sentencing in this case, nor to the prospects for your future.

49As well, as I have said, as letters from your mother and your sister, I have read a considerable number of character references from a number of friends who have known you for a considerable period of time.  I also note that both during the plea hearing and certainly here today, there are a number of people in court to support you.

50All of the references indicate that, apart from this offending, you have engaged responsibly in the community with your work, your involvement in Freemasonry, and in your strong family commitments - as I have said, in an extended family which included a grandmother to whom you were very close and who has since passed away.  All references mention your devotion to your young daughter.

51It appears that these friends, as well as your family, will continue to support you both while you are in prison and on your release.  I am satisfied that such support, as well as your prospects, of employment, and lack of underlying problems such as addictions or health issues, make your prospects for rehabilitation on release from prison good.

52It is ultimately in the interests of not only you and your family, but the community in general, that some facilitation of rehabilitation be a component of the sentencing considerations in your case, and I have taken that into account.

53However, the sentencing principle of general deterrence is the most important in this case.  The sentences I impose must signal to others tempted to engage in similar conduct that stern punishment is likely.  Whatever you, your family or friends, or other members of the community may think about the usefulness of cannabis medicinally, the growing of it in the circumstances that occurred here cannot be condoned. The growing of it was illegal and remains illegal, and the proliferation of such cultivations in residential premises generally has led to widespread distribution of this illegal drug with acknowledged damaging consequences to many people and to the community at large. 

54I was referred to tables prepared by the Judicial College of Victoria of other cases where people have been sentenced for a principal offence of cultivation of cannabis in a commercial quantity.  My attention was drawn by your counsel to two cases where the motivation was accepted to be at least in part to make cannabis oil or for use for therapeutic purposes.  In one of those, the case of Devlin, a sentence combining imprisonment with a community correction order was imposed.  But that was before the amending of the Sentencing Act to include s.5(2H), which I shall discuss shortly.

55The cases, I have looked at in general term,s show a considerable range in the sentences and most, although not all, occurred where there was a plea of guilty, often an early plea of guilty, which would have attracted a reduction in the sentence to which you are not entitled.  I do note that many of those cases involved larger quantities of cannabis, and all, of course, turn on the in particular circumstances, including where some individuals had prior criminal history relevant to the offending.

56I have taken into account several of those cases and I must have regard to current sentencing practice.  However, I am not bound by the range of outer limits of the sentences.  In this case, your sentence will be within the range, in any event. 

57It was acknowledged on your behalf, and as I indicated after the jury's verdict, I find, that no sentence other than imprisonment would be adequate in this case to fulfil sentencing principles.

58However, I was urged on your behalf to impose a sentence which combines a term of imprisonment with a Community Correction Order which could support your rehabilitation in the community on release from prison. Under s.44 of the Sentencing Act, such a combination sentence would only be possible if a term of no more than 12 months' imprisonment were imposed.

59The prosecution submits that it is not open to impose a combination sentence of that type because of the application of sub-s.5(2H) of the Sentencing Act. 
I queried the meaning of this provision and whether double negatives negated the exclusion of a combination sentence, and I also asked whether the meaning of this provision had been discussed in other cases. I allowed time for written submissions on that issue, and I received written submissions from both the prosecution and defence.  I have read those.  Neither submission was able to find any cases specifically discussing this issue.

60As I understand the submission from your lawyers, it is not challenged that the sub-section excludes a combination sentence in general circumstances, but they seek to rely on one of the stated exceptions; that is, part e, namely, that there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare that justify not making an order for imprisonment that is not a sentence imposed in addition to a community correction order.

61Charge 1 is a Category 2 offence, and under s.5(2H), a sentence under Division 2 of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act must be imposed unless one of the exceptions set out applies. I remain in some doubt about the meaning of the wording which follows, and whether it negates the exclusion of a combination sentence. However, as the prosecution points out, s.44 falls within Part 3A and not Part 3. The wording including the negatives may therefore be superfluous.

62Division 2 of Part 3 is headed "custodial sentences", although it is specific as to imprisonment only in relation to aggregate sentences and circumstances where imprisonment or minimum terms are required, before dealing with non-parole periods and other corollaries of sentences of imprisonment.

63For reasons which follow, I do not need to reach a conclusion as to the  meaning of sub-section 5(2H).

64That is because  I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare that justify not making an order for imprisonment, or which would allow for a combination sentence.

65I accept that you believe that cannabis oil had the prospect of providing therapeutic relief for sufferers of serious illness, including your mother and
Mr Fisher.  However, I am not satisfied that those circumstances were compelling and exceptional in that no legal option for obtaining cannabis oil was considered by you, and Mr Fisher made clear he wanted a free supply of it. It seems to me that you were prepared to take a risk, and allow what you knew to be illegal cultivation of cannabis to occur at your house, in a quantity exceeding 25 kilograms. Further there is no evidence that cannabis oil was actually going to be produced from any of the cannabis cultivated at your house.  Whatever your views or the views of others as to the prospects of medical use of cannabis oil, the reason you rely upon for committing this offence was to obtain a free supply of the oil for your mother and family friend. I have said, I am not satisfied that you had no other motivation or prospective benefit from it. 

66Moreover, I have concluded that even if it were available, a combination sentence would not be adequate to meet all sentencing purposes and principles in this case. In other words, I have decided that a sentence of imprisonment is required considerably exceeding 12 months' imprisonment, even if that were followed by a Community Correction Order of some years, on Charge 1 alone, and certainly as a total effective sentence with the other charges.

67As I accept that your motivation for this offending was not solely for personal gain, and in light of your good prospects of re-establishing for yourself a stable and responsible future, I shall fix a non-parole period somewhat lower than might otherwise be expected in the circumstances.

68As I have said, there are four charges and some cumulation from two of them on the most serious charge, Charge 1, in my view, is warranted.  But I have explained why that is quite modest, and there will not be cumulation of Charge 3.

69The authorities make clear that where there is an electricity bypass to support a hydroponic cultivation of cannabis, there ought to be some cumulation between the charge for theft of the electricity and the substantive charge in relation to the cultivation.

70Would you stand up, now, please. Thomas Williamson, on each of these charges, you are convicted and sentenced as follows.

71On Charge 1 of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, three years' imprisonment.

72On Charge 2 of trafficking cannabis, ten months' imprisonment.

73On Charge 3 of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime, six months' imprisonment.

74On Charge 4, theft of electricity, eight months' imprisonment.

75I direct that two months of the sentences on each of Charges 2 and 4 be served cumulatively on each other and on the sentence on Charge 1.

76That produces a total effective sentence of 38 months' imprisonment or three years and four months.

77I fix a minimum term before you could be eligible for parole of 20 months. 

78I declare 76 days of pre-sentence detention as reckoned served, and direct that that be recorded in court records.  That will be deducted administratively from both the total effective sentence and the non-parole period.

79I was asked to make some ancillary orders.  Application was made for a forensic sample to be taken from you, Mr Williamson, to enable your DNA to be recorded in the national database.  I am satisfied I should make that order and the reason is the seriousness of the circumstances of the offending.  I limit it to a sample from the mouth - they call that a "buckle swab", or a scraping from the mouth.  It does not hurt unless you resist, and it is not intrusive unless you resist.  But
I warn you, as I must, that if you resist, authorised persons can use reasonable force to take that sample.

80I believe there is a draft of a disposal order.  Insofar as that deals with hydroponic installation equipment and documents associated with the cultivation, I would be prepared to make that order.

81It appeared to me on the draft that there is a credit card that I just do not know anything about, and I am not sure about the purpose for that being including in a disposal order.  It may no longer be active, but I do not know anything about it and I will not order it be disposed of unless I hear more of that.

82And you can take a seat at this stage, Mr Williamson, because I have more to ask as to whether a forfeiture order is pursued.

83OFFENDER:  Thank you, Your Honour. 

84HER HONOUR:  But Mr Hannan, first in relation to the disposal order.

85MR HANNAN:  I'm content to strike that from the schedule; that is, the credit card.

86HER HONOUR:  The credit card.  Yes.  I browsed down the list.  I cannot see anything else that is not part and parcel of the accoutrements of the cultivation, but the credit card I just - it is a credit card statement.  I beg your pardon.

87MR HANNAN:  It's a credit card statement.

88HER HONOUR:  I just had a look.  Sorry, that is my error.

89MR HANNAN:  Good.  Yes, it's just a statement.

90HER HONOUR:  Well, presumably a copy can be obtained.  I am not trying to be facetious about it.  I am sorry, I misread that.  It is a statement.  If you have got a fresh copy of the order, I will sign that.

91MR HANNAN:  Yes, I do, Your Honour.  And I will just get some instructions about the forfeiture of the camera which was used to take the photographs.

92HER HONOUR:  If you could hand that order up, I can be signing it in the ‑ ‑ ‑ 

93MR HANNAN:  Yes, this disposal ‑ ‑ ‑ 

94HER HONOUR:  The disposal one.  I can be signing it in the meantime.

95MR HANNAN:  We won't pursue the forfeiture order, Your Honour.

96HER HONOUR:  All right.  I have signed the disposal order and I signed in advance the forensic sample order.  Does the arithmetic add up?

97MR HANNAN:  Yes. 

98MS VARDY:  Yes, Your Honour. 

99HER HONOUR:  All right.  That brings this sentencing to a close.  I am prepared to allow Mr Williamson to kept in the court room for a couple of minutes.  There is to be no physical contact with him, but I am aware there are family members present who might - and I will let them have a couple of minutes to talk to him.

100OFFENDER:  Thank you.  Thank you, Your Honour. 

101HER HONOUR:  All right.  I will stand the court down, then, till the next matter at 11.30.

‑ ‑ ‑