Trafficking, Cultivation of Narcotic Plants, Possess & Use of Drug of Dependence

The client was charged with cultivating over 20 plants at various stages of gestation.

A total weight of just under 6 kgs (plants and some packaged dry cannabis) was alleged.

The quantity deemed a “traffickable quantity” under the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act is 250 grams.

Shaun Pascoe represented the client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court for the following charges:

  • Trafficking
  • Cultivation of narcotic plants
  • Possess drug of dependence
  • Use of drug of dependence

The most serious charge of traffick drug of dependence was withdrawn.

The prosecution could not establish an intention to traffick the cannabis to consumers. The prosecution relied heavily on the amount of cannabis seized at the premises but could not adduce any other evidence necessary to discharge the evidentiary burden of establishing an intention to traffick in the various quantities of cannabis found.

The Court had regard to the absence of prior history, the unique personal circumstances of the client, and the significant steps towards rehabilitation already started.

After entering a plea of guilty to Cultivate Drug of Dependence and Use Drug of Dependence, the client was convicted and placed on a Community Based Order for 6 months for the offence of Cultivate drug of dependence, with the condition to attend for counselling. For the offence of Use Drug of Dependence, the client was fined $1000.


Shaun PascoeShaun Pascoe

Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.

He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.

Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his background and experience.

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 25/02/2013