R v Parisi

The appeal concerned Tony Parisi, who was convicted after a judge-alone trial of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabis contrary to section 32(1) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). Police found a significant quantity of cannabis spread on shelves in a shed at the appellant's property, along with hydroponic equipment. The appellant admitted the cannabis and equipment belonged to him and stated it was for personal use, grown annually for that purpose. He was interviewed immediately after the search and the cannabis was subsequently analysed and weighed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had proven the elements of the offence, specifically concerning the quantity of cannabis and the appellant's intent. The court had to determine whether the weight of the cannabis, as found by police, constituted a "large commercial quantity" for the purposes of the Act, and whether the appellant possessed the requisite intent to traffic. A key point of contention was whether the weight of "wet" cannabis should be considered, or if the weight should be assessed after accounting for moisture loss to determine its air-dried weight.

The court reasoned that for a charge of trafficking in a large commercial quantity, the prosecution must prove the defendant intended to sell not less than two kilograms of the cannabis in their possession. It was clarified that the prosecution does not need to prove the defendant knew the exact weight or that two kilograms constitutes a large commercial quantity. The court rejected the prosecution's alternative submission that the "wet" weight of cannabis should be considered a large commercial quantity even if the defendant intended to sell it only after drying to a lesser weight. The court found that the "dried cannabis approach" adopted by the trial judge was not incorrect.

The court concluded that proof of an intention to sell an amount of cannabis that in fact weighs not less than two kilograms would suffice, even if the total quantity was greater. In this case, it was sufficient to prove an intention to sell not less than an amount of cannabis that weighed not less than two kilograms of the total 11.99 kilograms found. The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for re-trial.