R v Clarke

[2014] NSWDC 35

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Clarke [2014] NSWDC 35
Hearing dates:	7 March 2014
Decision date:	07 March 2014
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Taking into account the matter on the Form 1, sentenced to a period of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years and a head sentence of 7 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Form 1 - Cultivate a large commercial quantity of cannabis by enhanced indoor means - Employee in a very large scale commercial cannabis growing operation
Cases Cited:	R v Le [2010] NSWDC 229
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Joshua Jack Clarke
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G Turnbull SC - Offender Solicitors; Director of Public Prosecutions Tully and Chiper Lawyers - Offender
File Number(s):	2012/348940

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: The offence to which Joshua Jack Clarke has pleaded guilty carries with it a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a standard nonparole period of ten years. The parties today have reminded me of what I earlier said about sentencing for offences of this type. In R v Le [2010] NSWDC 229 I said that from information available to me, sentences imposed upon those convicted of cultivating a large commercial quantity of cannabis by enhanced indoor means do not appear to have reflected the seriousness with which the legislature says such offences should be treated. Nothing I have seen since handing that decision down in October 2010 has caused me to alter my view.

1. Nevertheless, as I noted in Le, it is not for me to take an idiosyncratic view, different from those of my judicial brethren, and more importantly it is not for me to take a view inconsistent with that of the Court of Criminal Appeal when it has considered appeals regarding sentences for offences of this type.

1. It is important to note, however, that I should not simply pay lip service to two significant matters which I must bear in mind in determining the appropriate sentence, the maximum penalty of 20 years, and the standard nonparole period of ten years. I have taken both of those into account in determining the appropriate sentence. My reasons for not imposing the standard nonparole period appear in these remarks on sentence.

1. The offender worked as an employee in a very large scale commercial cannabis growing operation. For reasons I gave in an earlier judgment, it is impossible to be accurate about the precise number of plants that were growing when police appeared at the premises where the offender was working and seized cannabis material, however I can say that the number of growing cannabis plants was close to 2,000 and anything that was not a plant, because it did not have a root, would probably have shortly become a plant. It is to be borne in mind that the commercial quantity of cannabis plants for this offence is 200. This is enough to indicate the scale of the operation.

1. During the course of an issue regarding disputed…