R v Godfrey

This matter concerned an appeal against conviction and sentence by the appellant, Mr Godfrey, following his conviction for offences contrary to the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) and the Electricity Act 1996 (SA). The offences related to the sophisticated cultivation of cannabis at a property jointly owned by the appellant, where two tenants, Ms Brodribb and Mr Bourchier, were also present and pleaded guilty to related charges. The central dispute at trial was the extent of the appellant's involvement in the cannabis cultivation, which occurred in locked grow rooms on the ground floor of the two-level property.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant's conviction was sound, particularly in light of the evidence implicating him in the cultivation and the possession of associated equipment. Furthermore, the court considered whether the sentence imposed upon the appellant was manifestly excessive, especially when compared to the sentences received by his co-offenders, Ms Brodribb and Mr Bourchier, whose appeals against sentence were also before the court.

The court noted that the appellant was implicated through various pieces of evidence, including his fingerprints on hydroponic equipment, his part ownership of the property, the presence of his vehicles and clothing at the premises, and his possession of keys granting access to the cultivation area and a room containing unused hydroponic equipment. The appellant also made admissions regarding his continued access to the property for storage and mail collection, and his possession of keys. In considering the appeal against sentence, the court referred to the principles of parity, as articulated in *Lowe v The Queen*, which permits interference with sentences where a disparity between co-offenders gives rise to a justifiable sense of grievance or the appearance that justice has not been done.

The court ultimately referred the appeal against sentence to the Full Court. While the specific outcome of the appeal against conviction is not detailed in the provided text, the court's reasoning regarding the co-offenders' sentences highlighted that while the starting point of five years was at the high end for commercial cultivations of that size, it was not inherently excessive. However, the sentences imposed on Ms Brodribb and Mr Bourchier were found to be manifestly excessive due to their limited roles as caretakers, the absence of evidence regarding the value of the cannabis, and their difficult personal circumstances, which militated strongly for less severe sentences.