IN THE DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
ADELAIDE
WEDNESDAY, 5 MARCH 2025 AT 9.33 A.M.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE ALLEN
NO.DCCRM-23-009480
R V DANIEL JOHN EELBECK AND SHAUN RICHARD WILLIAM HUNT
NO.DCCRM-24-047011
R V DANIEL JOHN EELBECK
HIS HONOUR IN SENTENCING SAID:
Daniel John Eelbeck, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:
- trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug contrary to s 32(2) of the Controlled Substances Act, the maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $200,000 or imprisonment for 25 years or both;
- two counts of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, the maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years or both; and
- cultivating controlled plants for sale contrary to s 33B(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, the maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years or both.
You are entitled to a discount of up to 5% on account of those pleas. There is no reason why you should not receive the full discount.
You further pleaded guilty to the following offences:
- possess prescribed equipment contrary to s 33LA(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, the maximum penalty for which is a fine of $10,000 or two years imprisonment or both;
- abstract or divert electricity from power system contrary to s 85(1)(a) of the Electrical Act, the maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $20,000 or imprisonment for two years or both;
- possess prescription drug contrary to s 18(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, the maximum penalty for which is a fine of $10,000 or two years imprisonment or both; and
- have or used prohibited weapon contrary to s 21F(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act, the maximum penalty for this offence is $20,000 or imprisonment for two years.
You are entitled to a discount of up to 30% on account of your early guilty pleas. Again, there is no reason why you should not receive the full discount.
Shaun Richard William Hunt, you have pleaded guilty to trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug contrary to s 32(2) of the Controlled Substances Act. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $200,000 or imprisonment for 25 years or both. You were committed for sentence to this Court for the offence of cultivating controlled plants for sale contrary to s 33B of the Controlled Substances Act. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years or both.
You are entitled to a discount of up to 5% for your plea in relation to the trafficking offence. You are entitled to a discount on the cultivation offending committed from the Magistrates Court of up to 15%. There is no reason why you should also not be afforded the full discounts.
Briefly, the facts of the matter are as follows.
Police attended at your home address at Noarlunga Downs as a consequence of information received. A search of the property took place. Prior to entry, police observed you, Mr Hunt, placing various items into a small purple bin situated at the rear of the house.
You were also observed to place a black box under the decking of the property.
Inside the purple bin, police located a fishing reel box containing plastic resealable sandwich bags, each containing four blocks of white powder. The total amount of mixed weight was 220.8 g, of which 29.21 g was pure cocaine. Both of your DNA was present on one of the plastic bags. It is this evidence that gives rise to count 1, namely, trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug.
Also inside the bin police located a mobile phone box containing 22 plastic resealable bags containing 31.68 g of white powder, of which 3.09 g was pure cocaine. This evidence gives rise to count 2, namely, trafficking in a controlled drug. This evidence was rolled into your plea, Mr Hunt, on count 1.
The total amount of cocaine located was 252.48 g.
Also located was a black Drakes shopping bag contained boxes of plastic resealable bags and four bags of cannabis weighing a total of 247.1 g. This is the evidence that gives rise to count 3.
When police entered the garage at the rear of the premises, they located 10 female cannabis plants growing hydroponically. These plants give rise to count 5, namely, cultivate controlled plants for sale.
The presence of hydroponic equipment and diversion of electricity associated with this cultivation gives rise to these additional charges to which you have pleaded guilty, Mr Eelbeck.
Police also located $7,260 cash, which is to be forfeited to the Crown. You are not charged with nor have you admitted this offending and you are not to be punished for it. It does, however, put the charged offending into its proper context, particularly as to you, Mr Eelbeck.
Analysis of your mobile phone, Mr Eelbeck, revealed photographs and messages consistent with you trafficking in cannabis.
Having regard to the affidavit of Detective Mitchell dated 22 January 2025, the cocaine was worth about $50,000 to $100,000, depending on the way in which it may have been sold.
Mr Eelbeck, during the course of submissions, your counsel outlined how you say it is that you came to be in possession of the cocaine that brings you before this court.
You were involved in a motor vehicle collision when you were 17 years of age. There was a significant collision, at high speed which resulted in the death of one of your friends and you being left with significant lifelong injuries. Your injuries included fractures to your spine, a closed-head injury, punctured lungs and internal bleeding. You were bedridden for a long period of time and continue to suffer the adverse consequences of the brain injury.
As a consequence of your injuries and their sequelae, you fell into drug use. You became dependent on cannabis and subsequently cocaine as a way of dealing with the physical and emotional trauma that you had endured.
The submission advanced by your counsel as to how it was that you came to be in possession of approximately 350 g of cocaine requires some discussion. It was submitted on your behalf that the cocaine the subject of these charges is of poor quality with purity of less than 9%.
It was submitted on your behalf that the drugs came to be at your premises as a consequence of a party you were to hold. The court was told that you had purchased two ounces of cocaine and that it was intended that the cocaine be shared amongst the attendees at the party, with each attendee contributing financially for their usage of the cocaine. It was submitted that you financed the acquisition of those drugs and were to receive payment from those persons attending the party, as I understand it, on a quid pro quo basis. You intended to keep any residual cocaine for your own use.
The submission advanced was that the majority of the cocaine was foisted upon you by those further up the trafficking chain and, in effect, that this became something of an obligation thrust upon you to deal with, rather than something that you were willingly engaged in. I was told that this became a form of drug debt and effectively your problem.
In support of this proposition, the court was provided with police incident reports that outlined crimes ostensibly perpetrated against you at around the relevant time. I was told this was to enforce the drug debt arising from your receipt of the cocaine.
The prosecution disputes this version of events and submitted that the court should not accept what was being advanced on your behalf.
Ultimately, I am prepared to accept what was advanced on your behalf in relation to some of the cocaine, that is, that you were trafficking in the substance on a relatively limited basis to friends who would attend at your premises for social occasions. However, the rather elaborate explanation for a larger portion of the cocaine is difficult to accept, notwithstanding what has been suggested as supporting materials to your claim.
Ultimately, I am placed in a position such as that described by Kourakis CJ in R v Kreutzer,[1] in that there is something of a vacuum as to the facts on which you fall to be sentenced.
Having regard to all of the circumstances, I propose to sentence you on the basis that you were a user dealer, selling to friends and acquaintances for the purposes of social occasions. In addition, the sheer quantity of the cocaine present, notwithstanding its quality, suggests that you would have also sold on other occasions if requests were made of you.
As to the cannabis crop being grown hydroponically inside the house, again, having regard to all of the evidence, it was apparent that this also had a commercial aspect. You have pleaded guilty to trafficking cannabis. You were growing the cannabis for at least, in part, for sale.
It is evident from the contents of your mobile telephone that you fall to be sentenced against a background of trafficking in cannabis. You are not to be punished for uncharged trafficking, but it does place your charged offending in its proper context.
As to you, Mr Hunt, you were residing with Mr Eelbeck at the Port Noarlunga address. You were heavily addicted to cannabis, using on a daily basis when you got home from work. You also became a user of cocaine. It is accepted that, upon the police attendance, you attempted to secrete the cocaine in what has been described by your counsel as a panicked response to the attendance of police.
Concealing the drugs in this way is captured by the definition of 'trafficking' under the Controlled Substances Act. It is accepted by the prosecution that you were not involved in any form of distribution of the cocaine, nor were you aware of the precise activities of Mr Eelbeck in relation to that substance whilst it was present at your residence. It was conceded that, whilst you did not know anything about the level of the profit that may have been made, you were aware that money was changing hands.
In relation to the cultivation of the cannabis plants for sale, you were assisting with the maintenance of the crop, the process of the harvest and were not the owner of the cannabis or associated equipment. By your plea of guilty, you accept knowing that some of the cannabis products would have been sold.
Mr Eelbeck, I have received a copy of your criminal history. You have some dated and relatively minor offending, none of which is of the same species as that before this Court. This offending took place after your motor vehicle accident when you were experiencing difficulties with anger management issues.
Mr Hunt, I have received a copy of your criminal history. Your criminal history is dated and you are effectively a first-time offender.
I turn to each of your personal circumstances dealing with you first, Mr Eelbeck.
In assessing your personal circumstances, I take into account the psychological report of Mr Paul Kassapidis dated 8 November 2024, a letter from Seaford Chiropractic dated 6 November 2024, a letter from Ocean to Hills Physiotherapy, the five character references that I have received, your letter of apology, the home detention suitability report prepared by the Department of Correctional Services dated 23 January 2025, together with the extensive and helpful submissions of your counsel in their entirety.
You are 32 years of age. You were born in Adelaide and have two older sisters aged 31 and 35. You had a mostly positive childhood, notwithstanding your parents' separation when you were 12 years of age. Your father moved to England a few years later, but has since returned to Australia. Your father remains supportive of you, despite the offending before this court.
Your mother is employed as a full-time carer. You describe your mother in very positive terms. Your mother is understandably apprehensive about these proceedings, but remains supportive of you nonetheless. Your siblings also remain supportive of you.
You remained at your family home until leaving home just after completing year 10. You were bullied throughout year 10, which ultimately led to you leaving school. You began an apprenticeship in fencing in 2009 and commenced full-time employment. However, your employment ceased following the serious motor vehicle accident on 5 September 2010, to which I have referred which occurred a few months before your 18th birthday. You did not return to employment for approximately five years due to the multiple physical injuries you sustained and the extensive rehabilitation that was required.
You were travelling as a rear-seat passenger in a vehicle with four other friends with the driver hit an embankment and rolled the vehicle at extreme speed. Two passengers were flung from the vehicle and you witnessed one of your friends die at the accident site. You suffered significant injuries, including a crushed lung, broken nose, neck, back and bilateral shoulders, hips and knees.
You currently receive ongoing treatment for a spine condition as a result of the motor vehicle incident every four weeks. It is also necessary for you to receive physiotherapy every fortnight to manage your symptoms and prevent further deterioration.
Thereafter, you developed both a PTSD condition and chronic pain management. You stated that you started partying, that is, using illicit substances recreationally, as a way to help you deal with your physical pains and your constant thoughts about 'losing your mate', in your words.
You returned to full-time employment completing fencing and retaining wall work whilst on home detention in 2022 and you continue to remain in employment to date.
After the motor vehicle accident, you became angry due to missing a significant period of your young adulthood. To combat these issues, you joined a local boxing club where you still volunteer to date to assist the youth that attend there. You expressed to your Counsel a desire to use this experience to help others, in particular, young people, to try and help them to avoid making the same mistakes that you have made.
Whilst on home detention bail, you completed the foundation course through Charles Darwin University, which will allow you to participate in greater educational opportunities such as social work that you have expressed a desire to enter into.
Notwithstanding your history of substance abuse, you do not have any history of interpersonal difficulties. Your long-term relationship with your partner was disrupted due to these proceedings. However, this relationship has improved and you have become engaged.
During your rehabilitation, you were also diagnosed with having sustained a traumatic brain injury and associated difficulties that further amplified your PTSD and depressive disorder that you had developed. You have also been diagnosed with anxiety.
Specifically, your brain injury significantly impacted your left prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for information processing, language comprehension, general communication and expression and memory retention.
You commenced smoking cannabis at the end of high school. You stated that you also used pills and cocaine after the accident and that your usage increased over time.
You admitted to your counsellor that you had most likely become addicted to cannabis and could not go without using the drug. You told Mr Kassapidis that you have ceased contact with any individuals previously known to you who used illicit drugs since your arrest.
You have also attended and successfully completed a three-month drug counselling course through the Offender Aid Rehabilitation Services. You found this program extremely beneficial and have abstained from controlled substances since your arrest.
I accept that you have responded positively since your arrest to both clinical treatment and the programs that you have engaged in. You have taken active steps, largely self-directed, to attend drug awareness education and to complete studies that will allow you a change of vocational careers from the labour-intensive work that you have felt compelled to perform, despite medical advice to the contrary. You told your counsel you are motivated to engage in any further programs that will assist your ongoing rehabilitation.
Unsurprisingly, your PTSD and escalating trepidation with regards to the outcome of these proceedings has increased.
I note your family remains very supportive of you and that you are currently in a positive relationship. You also have further supports as evidenced through the character references that I have received.
Mr Hunt, in relation to your personal circumstances, I have regard to the psychological report of Dr Lim dated 14 November 2024, a medical report dated 23 July 2024, the pre-sentence report prepared by the Department for Correctional Services dated 12 December 2024, the home detention report prepared by the Department of Correctional Services dated 22 January 2025, together with the helpful submissions of your counsel.
You are 33 years of age. You were born and raised in England until you were approximately nine or 10 years old, at which point you immigrated to Australia with your parents and siblings. Your father was a butcher by trade and still works in that industry. Your mother was a full-time homemaker and caregiver to you and your siblings.
Your mother was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2012-2013. She also has a history of chronic fatigue and mobility problems. She is currently in receipt of a disability support pension. Her condition is relatively stable at present.
You are the second oldest of seven siblings. However, one of your siblings died when you were approximately four years old due to sudden infant death syndrome. Notwithstanding your sibling's death, you did not believe this negatively impacted on your childhood. You have told Dr Lim that your family remains close and are supportive of you.
At 16 years of age, you left your family home to move into a share house with several friends. Notably, when you lived in share houses, you were influenced into leading a party-type lifestyle and began binge drinking and abusing cannabis from about 17 years of age.
You became a father when you were 21 years of age. This was an unplanned pregnancy with a former partner. A few years later, you had twin sons. Your daughter is 14 years of age and your twin sons are 12 years of age.
You frankly acknowledge that you struggled to cope with the demands of parenthood. You and your former partner grew apart over time due to regular arguments. Your break-up was amicable to begin with and you were effectively co-parenting. However, your former partner met a new partner and made it extremely difficult for you to have any contact with your children. The last time you had contact with your children was six years ago in approximately 2017-2018. You have been consistently making child support payments during this period. You wish to reconnect with your children in the future and hope to have more contact with them.
You completed year 10 at school. You then commenced work through your father as a butcher's apprentice, as well as conducting some factory work. You were employed as a butcher for about five years, which included completing a three-year apprenticeship program. Thereafter, you were employed as a process worker in a car parts manufacturing factory for approximately one year.
You then commenced full-time work for Raw Structures as a plasterer and renderer. You have been at this company for the past eight years and are currently employed as a supervisor and leading hand. Your employers are aware of these proceedings and remain supportive of you.
You have a history of alcohol, cannabis and cocaine abuse. You began binge drinking in your late teens, largely in the context of socialising with your peers. You ceased binge drinking in your late twenties and have since only drunk in moderation throughout the week.
You started smoking cannabis at 17 years of age after you left school. You were a recreational cannabis user to begin with, but you progressively developed an addiction to this drug after you separated from your ex-partner. You state that you were self-medicating at the time to help with your mental health issues.
At its highest, you would smoke approximately 2.5 g of cannabis every one to two days. You had persisted with this cannabis use until you were arrested in respect of the offending before this court. I note since being released from custody you were motivated to remain abstinent from cannabis use.
You have also participated in the New ROADS substance use program via Uniting Communities since mid-2024 for relapse prevention counselling. You are finding this program helpful in respect of your rehabilitation.
You commenced using cocaine at the age of 24 years of age. You would only ever consume cocaine in social settings. You ceased cocaine use at the same time as your cannabis use. You are currently fully abstinent from all illicit drugs.
You were childhood friends with your co-offender and were living at the Noarlunga Downs property with the co-offender prior to your arrest. All three of you at the property were heavy smokers of cannabis.
You told Dr Lim that you knew that you were participating in illegal conduct, but disregarded the consequences due to the benefits you were receiving by engaging in the illegal conduct, including obtaining cheaper cocaine. You told Dr Lim that you now realise 'how stupid' your behaviour was and the damages that drugs can have on a person's life.
You have been dealing with depression for a number of years. Dr Lim opined at the time of your offending you were experiencing depressed mood and intermittent suicidal ideation due to a chronic adjustment disorder as a result of the protracted period of separation from your children in the context of conflicts with your ex-partner. You also had a cannabis use disorder at the time of your offending.
I note that you have made positive steps to address your drug addiction. Dr Lim opines that you will remain at a low risk of re-offending were you to continue your current positive trajectory, which spans over a number of years. You are highly motivated to remain abstinent from drug use and wish to care for your mother, as well as reconnecting with your children, upon the conclusion of these proceedings.
I turn to sentence. Would you please stand.
Mr Eelbeck, the prosecution submits that you should be sentenced as a mid‑range dealer of cocaine and that relevant sentencing considerations mean that only an immediate gaol term is appropriate in the circumstances.
Your counsel submitted that, having regard to the factual basis advanced on your behalf, together with your demonstrated rehabilitation, that it was appropriate for the Court to order that any sentence be served subject to a home detention order.
Mr Hunt, the prosecution accepts the factual basis advanced on your behalf and acknowledged that this places your offending in a different category.
As to the disposition of your matter Mr Hunt, the prosecution submits that it would be open to the court to suspend any term of imprisonment should the court find that good reason exists.
The offence of trafficking in a controlled drug is a serious offence. Great social harms are caused by controlled drugs. As to both of you, a sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate penalty.
In sentencing you, Mr Eelbeck, I am mindful of the observations of Kourakis CJ in R v Young.[2] The prosecution submits that the quantity of cocaine that you possessed places you above the level of an ordinary street dealer. However, I note that the quantity of drugs is not always necessarily a reliable indicator as to determining the category of a dealer.
I propose to sentence you on the basis set out earlier in these remarks, namely, that you were a user/dealer, predominantly trafficking to friends and acquaintances when hosting or participating in social activities. However, given the amount of cocaine in your possession, it was also likely that you would have sold on other occasions if requests were made of you.
Further, there is a clear nexus between your cocaine addiction and your drug trafficking offending. It would seem that you were selling in order to, at least in part, support your own addiction.
I have regard to the progress that you have made since being released on home detention bail and your genuine rehabilitative efforts that you have undertaken through drug programs.
I note the support of your partner, family and friends. You have full-time work and have completed further study. Given the progress you have made, your prospects for rehabilitation are reasonably good.
For the offences of trafficking in a commercial quantity and trafficking in a controlled drug, namely, cocaine, I have regard to all relevant circumstances, including the objective seriousness of the offending and your personal circumstances, including employment, voluntary participation in drug rehabilitation programs and ongoing abstinence from drugs.
For the offences relating to cocaine, noting the objective seriousness of your offending, including the amount of drugs seized, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of three years and five months. After application of the 5% discount, this comes to a sentence of three years, two months and 29 days.
For the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug, namely, cannabis, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of eight months, which after application of the 5% discount comes to a sentence of imprisonment of seven months and 19 days.
For the offence of cultivate cannabis for sale, you will be sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, which after application of the 5% discount comes to a sentence of one year, one month and 10 days.
If the sentences were to be served cumulatively, this would result in a sentence of four years, 11 months and 28 days.
Having regard to all relevant matters as I am required to, including but not limited to the common criminogenic factors and some factual overlap in the offending, I order that there be a degree of concurrency as between the sentences imposed for these offences. This results in a final head sentence of four years imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of two years.
Consistent with the observations of the Court of Appeal in Ribbon v The Queen[3] and Owens v The King,[4] I deduct a period of six months from both the head sentence and the non-parole period on account of the time you spent on home detention bail, and a further 14 days for time served in custody.
This results in a head sentence of three years, five months and 17 days and a non-parole period of one year, five months and 17 days.
Your counsel conceded that in, all of the circumstances, good reason does not exist to suspend the sentence. With respect, that concession was well made.
I turn to whether the statutory prerequisites pursuant to s 71 of the Sentencing Act are met in order to permit you to serve your non-parole period pursuant to a home detention order.
I note that you previously complied with home detention bail conditions for one year, one month and 27 days. You have made good progress to rehabilitate following your arrest for this offending.
Whilst I accept you have made considerable rehabilitative efforts over the last three years, this does not alleviate the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the need for general deterrence and the primary and secondary considerations of sentencing under the Sentencing Act.
The paramount consideration that I am required to take into account when determining whether to make a home detention order is to protect the safety of the community, as well as the observations made by the Court of Appeal in R v Filipponi[5] and R v Dell & Dell.[6] I cannot be satisfied the safety of the community would be adequately protected by making a home detention order.
Notwithstanding the very positive progress that you have made since your arrest, including successful counselling, your employment, broad support within the community and that you have remained drug free, the objective seriousness of this offending means that I do not find that this is an appropriate case to make a home detention order.
Even if you were to be a suitable person to serve the sentence on home detention, in all of the circumstances, I am of the view that the making of a home detention order may affect public confidence in the administration of justice.
For the additional offences called up from the Magistrates Court, you will be convicted without further penalty. Both the head sentence and non-parole period will commence from today. You may leave.
I turn to your sentence, Mr Hunt.
Noting the very different role you played in your admitted offending, parity has a limited role to play in this case.
For the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of two years. After application of the 5% discount, this comes to a sentence of imprisonment of one year, 10 months and 25 days.
For the offence of cultivate controlled plants for sale, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of nine months. After application of the 5% discount, this comes to a sentence of imprisonment of eight months and 17 days.
Having regard to all relevant matters as I am required to, including but not limited to the common criminogenic factors and there being some factual overlap in the offending, I order that there be a degree of concurrency as between the sentences imposed for these offences. This results in a final head sentence of 18 months imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of nine months.
Noting your lesser role and finding that you were not the driving force behind what was happening at the relevant address, and also matters personal to you, including but not limited to your demonstrated rehabilitation, and noting the attitude of the prosecution, I find that good reason exists to suspend the sentence.
Your sentence will be suspended upon you entering into a bond in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The standard firearms conditions will also apply.
Mr Clarke, is your client prepared to enter into a bond in those terms?
MR CLARKE: He is, your Honour. Can I just raise a couple of matters, your Honour?
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MR CLARKE: Just in respect of the sentence in respect to the cultivate, I thought I heard your Honour say that you were applying a discount of 5%.
HIS HONOUR: I'm sorry, that should be 15%. Thank you. Yes.
MR CLARKE: Your Honour may have had regard to the time my client spent on home detention.
HIS HONOUR: Home detention and time in custody, yes.
I just need to adjourn briefly then to amend those figures.
Ms Walsh, you are free to go. I have made orders in terms of forfeiture of the drugs, the paraphernalia and the cash pursuant to the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act. Thank you, we will adjourn briefly.
ADJOURNED 10.07 A.M.
RESUMING 10.23 A.M.
HIS HONOUR: So, Mr Clarke, as I said earlier in my remarks, I refer to the one year, nine months and seven days that your client served on home detention, effectively without issue.
MR CLARKE: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: He also served eight days remanded in custody before being released on home detention bail.
MR CLARKE: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: In those circumstances, I propose to make an allowance of seven months for the time spent on home detention, in addition to eight days for the time that he was remanded in custody, noting that the final head sentence that I imposed prior to that discount was 18 months imprisonment. That takes his head sentence to a head sentence of 10 months and 23 days, and because that is less than 12 months, I am precluded from fixing a non-parole period. So the term of imprisonment will be 10 months and 23 days.
In terms of the conditions of the bond, it is a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of two years with standard firearms conditions.
Now, on that basis, Mr Clarke, is your client prepared to enter into a bond on those terms?
MR CLARKE: He is, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. All right, come forward, please.
BOND ACKNOWLEDGED
HIS HONOUR: Right, Mr Hunt, no doubt Mr Clarke will explain to you the significance of that document, but if you commit any criminal offence within that period of time you are likely to be brought back before this court and have to serve that sentence of imprisonment that I have just suspended, all right.
So you have made significant progress since you got tangled up in this. Make sure that you keep doing the right thing, all right. You can grab a seat behind Mr Clarke.
Mr Clarke, in relation to the 15% discount for the offence of cultivate controlled plants for sale, on my calculation, and this is for completeness sake, after application of the 15% discount to the notional sentence of nine months, that comes to a sentence of seven months and 20 days.
MR CLARKE: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Anything further?
MS WALSH: No.
HIS HONOUR: Anything further you wish to raise?
MR CLARKE: No, thank you.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Clarke, I'm grateful for you raising those things before I adjourned.
ADJOURNED 10.27 A.M.
[1] [2013] SASCFC 130.
[2] (2016) 126 SASR 41.
[3] [2022] SASCA 15.
[4] [2024] SASCA 65.
[5] [2016] SASCFC 148.
[6] [2016] SASCFC 156.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.