R v Featherstone

Case [2023] NSWDC 240


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Featherstone [2023] NSWDC 240
Hearing dates: 28 June 2023
Date of orders: 6 July 2023
Decision date: 06 July 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:

See [59]

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Enhanced indoor cultivate cannabis for commercial purposes

CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug

CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Mesterovicv The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 140

Texts Cited:

Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex (The Crown)
John Featherstone (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Anderson for Featherstone

Solicitors:
Bertuzzi for The Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s): 2022/00082390
Publication restriction: NA

JUDGMENT

  1. John Featherstone, the offender, appears for sentence in respect of the following two offences:

  1. In breach of section 23(1A) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (“DMTA”) he cultivated a prohibited plant namely cannabis of not less than the small quantity but less than the commercial quantity and being 13 plants by enhanced indoor means. The maximum sentence is 15 years imprisonment and/or 3500 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period. This offence will be referred to as “the cultivate offence”.

  2. In breach of section 25(2) DMTA he supplied a prohibited drug (not cannabis) in an amount no less than the commercial quantity. That drug was psilocybin. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment and or 3500 penalty units. The offence has a standard non-parole period of 10 years. This offence will be referred to as the “supply offence”.

  1. I take the maximum sentences and the standard non-parole period in respect of the cultivate offence into account as legislative guideposts indicating the legislature’s view of the seriousness of the offences to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence.

  2. In respect of the cultivate offence there are a further three offences to take into account by way of the Form 1 procedure. Those three further offences are as follows:

  1. In breach of section 10(1) DMTA being in possession of 6 g of cannabis leaf; the maximum sentence for that offence is 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 20 penalty units;

  2. A second count in breach of section 10(1) DMTA of being in possession of 3 g of cannabis seeds; the maximum sentence for this offence is 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 20 penalty units;

  3. In breach of section 25(1) of the DMTA, supplying a prohibited drug namely cannabis in the amount of 1.5 kg. I note that is an indictable quantity but less than a commercial quantity so that the maximum sentence for that offence when dealt with on indictment is a term of imprisonment of 10 years and/or a fine of 2000 penalty units.

  1. In regards to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus…

Continue reading R v Featherstone

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Featherstone [2023] NSWDC 240
Case
[2023] NSWDC 240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Featherstone, the defendant was brought before the court on charges of cultivating cannabis indoors for commercial purposes, possessing a prohibited drug, and supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant was found guilty on all charges and was subsequently sentenced.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant was involved in the cultivation and supply of cannabis, and if the amount of cannabis found warranted a commercial intent. The court also needed to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant given the severity of the offences.

The court found that the evidence provided was sufficient to establish the defendant's involvement in cultivating and supplying cannabis on a commercial scale. The quantity of cannabis found, along with the sophisticated nature of the indoor cultivation operation, indicated a commercial intent. The court noted that the defendant's role in the operation was significant, as he was involved in the management and logistics of the business. In sentencing, the court took into account the defendant's criminal history, his role in the operation, and the potential harm caused by the illegal activities. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offences committed.

The court's final orders included a custodial sentence for the defendant, along with other ancillary orders related to the confiscation of property and fines. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to a supervision order upon release from prison.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [59]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.