Possession of drugs for the purpose of supply – prosecution does not rely on presumption as to purpose of supply (Section 6(1)(f) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975)

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question two.

To have possession of cannabis, Mr Smith must:

(a) Have been aware of where the cannabis was; and

(b) Have been aware that the substance was cannabis, although Mr Smith did not need to know the exact composition of the cannabis; and

(c) Have had control of the cannabis, 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 cannabis.

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, go to question three.

[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 cannabis 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.

If no, find Mr Smith not guilty.

If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.