R v Granger

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the appellant, Granger, contested his conviction and sentence for possession of cannabis with intent to sell or supply, as per section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1985 (SA). The key issues in the case were the validity of the statutory presumption in s 32(3) that possession of cannabis implies intent to sell or supply, and whether the trial judge erred in various aspects of his decision-making process. The court was required to determine if the presumption violated judicial power or resulted in an unfair trial, and if the trial judge's handling of evidence and sentencing adhered to legal standards.

The court found that the statutory presumption in s 32(3) did not infringe upon judicial power or cause an unfair trial. It was deemed rational and not unreasonable, as it allowed for rebuttable evidence and did not prevent the defence from presenting a case. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge did not err in rejecting the appellant's evidence of personal cannabis use or in concluding that all cannabis found was for sale. The trial judge's sentencing decisions were also affirmed, as he correctly applied the relevant sentencing provisions and had discretion in deciding not to reduce the sentence.

Consequently, the appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed by the court. The trial judge's decisions regarding the presumption, evidence, and sentencing were upheld, and no grounds for a new trial or sentence reduction were found. The court's ruling underscored the validity of the statutory presumption and the trial judge's application of the law in this case.