Cannabis Cultivation and Electricity Meter Charges: Two Discharges and $5,000 Compensation
Our client faced charges of hydroponic cannabis cultivation, possessing prescribed equipment and interfering with an electricity meter. The Elizabeth Magistrates Court discharged him without conviction or further penalty on two counts, fined him $700 on the third, and ordered $5,000 compensation against a claim of more than $24,000.
Six cannabis plants were found growing with hydroponic equipment in a shed, along with ballast boxes, carbon filters, light shades and globes and bud strippers. An investigator from the electricity network had found a wire pushed through the meter’s dial cover, jamming the disc so that the meter could not accurately record the power being used. Our client pleaded guilty. The real fight was over how much compensation he should pay.
Outcome at a glance
- Cultivating cannabis plants by artificially enhanced cultivation (six plants): discharged without conviction or further penalty
- Possessing prescribed equipment: $700 fine
- Interfering with an electricity meter: discharged without conviction or further penalty
- Compensation: $5,000, against a claim of more than $24,000
- Heard in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court
Background
An investigator from the electricity network detected an unusually high load at the property and later returned with police. The investigator inspected the meter box and found the interference, and the cannabis was found growing in a rear shed with the equipment used to grow it.
Our client was charged with three offences:
- cultivating a cannabis plant by artificially enhanced cultivation, under section 33K(1)(ab) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA);
- possessing prescribed equipment, under section 33LA(a) of the same Act; and
- interfering with an electricity meter, under section 85(1)(b) of the Electricity Act 1996 (SA).
The prosecution also applied for compensation for the electricity used, supported by an affidavit that put the loss at more than $24,000.
The law: the charges and compensation
For a basic offence by someone who is not a serious drug offender, the maximum penalty for cultivating a cannabis plant by artificially enhanced cultivation is $2,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. On the same basis, the maximum for possessing prescribed equipment without reasonable excuse is $10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both, and the person charged bears the burden of proving a reasonable excuse.
Section 124 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) allows a court to order a defendant to pay compensation for injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence. Under section 124(4), the amount is whatever the court considers appropriate, having regard to the evidence before it and the representations made by the prosecution and the defence. If the court decides not to make an order where a right to compensation may have arisen, it must give its reasons.
That made the quality of the prosecution’s evidence about the loss decisive. The court could only fix an amount it considered appropriate on the evidence.
The problem with the loss calculation
The affidavit relied on three figures: an estimated daily use of 72 kWh, a total of nearly 158,000 kWh, and a suspected start date for the interference. Those figures did not reconcile. At 72 kWh a day, the total represented roughly 2,190 days, or about six years, of continuous use, which could not be squared with the start date the affidavit gave. The headline figure could not be correct for the period the affidavit itself described.
The affidavit also assumed the equipment ran continuously. The only reliable evidence about timing came from our client’s record of interview: the crop police found was about eight weeks old, and our client instructed us that he did not grow all year round.
Our approach
1. Accept liability and narrow the dispute
Our client did not dispute that he had grown the plants or interfered with the meter. Accepting liability let us confine the contest to one question the court had to decide: the amount of compensation.
2. Show the arithmetic did not work
Rather than argue about compensation in general terms, we sent the prosecutor a short note that set out the affidavit’s own figures and showed that they could not all be true, and prepared our submissions to the court on the same footing. An objective point like that is hard to answer.
3. Anchor any loss to reliable evidence
We offered conservative alternatives built on the evidence that could be relied on, such as the age of the crop found and discrete growing cycles, priced at the retailer’s rates for the property, instead of an assumption of continuous use over years.
4. Give the prosecution a way to resolve it
We called the prosecutor before the hearing to explain the problem and offer a sensible figure, so the matter could finish that day without a contested argument about the calculation.
Outcome
The Elizabeth Magistrates Court discharged our client without recording a conviction, and without further penalty, on the cultivation charge and on the electricity meter charge, fined him $700 for possessing prescribed equipment, and ordered compensation of $5,000.
The compensation ordered was about a fifth of the amount claimed, and the matter was finalised that day.
Key takeaways
- Compensation under section 124 of the Sentencing Act is fixed at an amount the court considers appropriate on the evidence, so a loss figure that does not add up can be challenged.
- Electricity interference claims often assume continuous use over long periods. The evidence may show something different, such as the age of the crop or how often growing took place.
- Accepting liability early can narrow a case to the one issue that matters most to the final result.
Related cannabis guides
- Cannabis offences in South Australia
- Cultivating cannabis
- Possession of prescribed hydroponic equipment
- Cultivation of cannabis for sale
Speak with Talon Legal about cannabis or electricity interference charges
If you have been charged with cultivating cannabis, possessing hydroponic equipment or interfering with an electricity meter, or you have received a compensation claim for electricity, get advice before you agree to any figure. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021 to speak with a senior criminal lawyer, or read more on our Criminal Defence page and our Elizabeth Magistrates Court page.
This case study describes one matter. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
