R v Garlick (No 2)

The appellant was convicted of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis and appealed against the conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in giving a direction on wilful blindness. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on wilful blindness and, if so, whether the appropriate remedy was to order a re-trial or to substitute a verdict of guilty of cultivation simpliciter. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in giving a direction on wilful blindness as there was no basis on the evidence for such a direction. The Court of Appeal held that, as the error was not trivial, the appropriate remedy was to substitute a verdict of guilty of cultivation simpliciter pursuant to s 569(2) of the Crimes Act 1958. The appellant was re-sentenced under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 ss 72A and 72B. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and substituted a verdict of guilty of cultivation simpliciter, and remitted the matter to the County Court for re-sentencing.