Possession of psychoactive substance for sale (Section 70(1)(c) Psychoactive Substances Act 2013)

Charge 1: Possession of psychoactive substance for sale under section 70(1)(c) of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

The Crown must prove each element of the offence. That is called the burden of proof. The Crown carries that burden. Also, the Crown must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. This is called the standard of proof. It means that you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that the substance in the plastic bags was synthetic cannabis?
	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 synthetic cannabis?
	To have possession of synthetic cannabis, Mr Smith must: (a) Have been aware of where the synthetic cannabis was; and (b) Have been aware that the substance was synthetic cannabis, although Mr Smith did not need to know the exact composition of the synthetic cannabis; and (c) Have had control of the synthetic 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 synthetic cannabis. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that Mr Smith, at the time of his possession, knew that synthetic cannabis was not an approved psychoactive substance or was reckless as to whether it was not an approved psychoactive substance?
	[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 synthetic cannabis was not an approved psychoactive substance 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 Mr Smith intended to sell some or all of the synthetic cannabis?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that Mr Smith had no reasonable excuse to sell the synthetic cannabis?
	[Note: This issue will only need to go to the jury if the defendant points to an evidential foundation for a reasonable excuse sufficient to raise the issue.] "Reasonable excuse” means an excuse which you as a jury think is reasonable in the circumstances. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.