Getting a Diversion Twice – Cultivate Cannabis, Fail to Answer Bail

This is a case study on getting a diversion twice for drug and bail offences.

What is alleged to have occured?
Our client was accused of cultivating a cannabis plant in a specially built growing cupboard which was detected during an inspection of the property. He subsequently was charged with a further offence of failing to answer bail.

What happened at court?
We represented the client at the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court. The exact charges were:

The client worked in a profession where any finding of guilt against him would need to have been disclosed and, as a result, could potentially see his lengthy career come to an end. Diversion was the only real option to avoid this outcome. However he had already previously received diversion months prior for an unrelated case. It is very unusual to receive the opportunity of diversion twice. The investigating police member initially refused to support diversion given this very circumstance.

Following discussions with the prosecution, we secured an agreement that the police would indeed file a diversion notice and not stand in the way of the diversion process being granted a second time. Supporting material was provided to the court in addition to written responses to the diversion questionnaire. Oral submissions were also made in court on behalf of the client.

What was the result?
Ultimately, our client succeeded in getting a diversion twice. The magistrate released our client subject to a diversion plan for a period of two months. During this time, the client must be of good behaviour and commit no further offences. A further condition is that he conduct some research into the potential ill-effects of cannabis use and prepare a two-page written summary of his research.

Elements of Cultivation of Narcotic Plants:
  • The accused intentionally cultivated a plant.
  • The plant cultivated by the accused was a narcotic plant.
Related case studies
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 07/03/2019