Possession of drugs for the purpose of supply – prosecution relies on presumption as to purpose of possession (Section 6(1)(f) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975)

Charge 1: Possession of drugs for the purpose of supply (Prosecution relies on presumption as to purpose of possession)

Charge 1: Possession of drugs for the purpose of supply under s 6(1)(f) and (6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

On questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 the Crown must prove the element of the offence. That is called the burden of proof. The Crown carries that burden. Also, the Crown must prove the elements in questions 1–4 beyond reasonable doubt. This is called the standard of proof. It means you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that the substance in the plastic bags was methamphetamine?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that on 15 July 2019 at the Inland Road address, Mr Smith had possession of the methamphetamine?
	To have possession of methamphetamine, Mr Smith must: (a) Have been aware of where the methamphetamine was; and (b) Have been aware that the substance was methamphetamine, although Mr Smith did not need to know the exact composition of the methamphetamine; and (c) Have had control of the methamphetamine, either through personal or shared custody or by having the ability to direct another who had personal custody; and (d) Have intended to exercise personal or shared control over the methamphetamine. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that Mr Smith knew at the time of his possession that methamphetamine was a controlled drug or was reckless as to whether it was a controlled drug?
	[Note: The mental element of the offence is assumed in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise. Therefore, this issue will only need to be put to the jury where the defendant has pointed to some evidence to raise the issue. If there is such evidence, the Crown is required to prove the mental element beyond reasonable doubt.] “Reckless” means that Mr Smith recognised that there was a real possibility that methamphetamine was a controlled drug and, having regard to that possibility, his actions were unreasonable. “Unreasonable” actions are actions that a reasonable and prudent person would not have taken. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that the quantity of methamphetamine was more than five grams?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
*On question 5, the burden of proof lies on Mr Smith who must satisfy you on that issue on the balance of probabilities, which means “more likely than not”.*
5.	Has Mr Smith satisfied you that it is more likely than not that that he did not possess any portion of the methamphetamine for the purpose of supplying [or selling] it to another person?
	If yes, find Mr Smith not guilty. If no, find Mr Smith guilty.