R v Pavic - [2021] SADC 133

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v PAVIC
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2021] SADC 133
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Durrant
29 November 2021
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
Accused charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug - presumption of possession of a traffickable quantity enlivened - evidence of possession for sole personal use - plausibility of evidence the accused funded purchase of 26.3g of methylamphetamine from salary - plausibility of evidence a bulk purchase of 26.3g of methylamphetamine made sense for the accused and his dealer.
Verdict: Guilty
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 4, 32, 33L, referred to.
R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150; Commonwealth Shipping Representative v P & O Branch Service [1923] AC 191; Markou v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 64, considered.

R v PAVIC
[2021] SADC 133
Introduction

The accused Milos Pavic pleaded not guilty to one charge of trafficking in 26.3g of methylamphetamine. He elected to be tried by Judge alone.[1]
[1] Information and Summons dated 18 June 2020; As this was a trial by Judge alone, I must deliver considered and fully articulated reasons. Whilst sufficient reasons must be given to properly explain my verdict I am not obliged to express all matters, ‘which necessarily have to be stated to a Jury, unfamiliar with the basic principles of law’, Markou v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 64, [19]; While it is not necessary for me to direct myself in the same way a jury would be directed, in reaching my verdict, I have applied the principles, relevant to this case, helpfully set out by Lovell DCJ (as he then was) in R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150, [11]- [25].
The accused is presumed innocent unless and until the evidence I accept satisfies me each element of the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not in dispute that the prosecution has proved the elements of the charged offence necessary to enliven the presumption that the accused was in possession of a traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale.[2] In order to rebut that legislative presumption, the accused gave evidence that he had possession of the drug for his personal use. The prosecution urged me to reject that evidence as implausible. The accused submitted his evidence should be accepted as it made sense and was cogent.
[2] Controlled Substances Act 1984, s 32(5).
If I accept the evidence of the accused, I must find him not guilty of the charged offence and guilty of simple possession.[3] If I do not accept his evidence of personal use, the prosecution relies on the legislative presumption and I must find the accused guilty of the charged offence.
[3] Controlled Substances Act 1984, s 33L.
Elements of the Offence
The offence of trafficking in a controlled drug contains several elements; each of which had to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the prosecution had to prove that the substance located by Police had been a “controlled drug”. That was not in dispute.
Second, the prosecution had to prove that the amount of methylamphetamine found had been a traffickable quantity. That was also not in dispute.
Third, the prosecution had to prove that the accused had been in “possession” of the methylamphetamine, by having control over the disposition of that substance. That element was also not in dispute.
Once proven to be in possession of a traffickable quantity, it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that an accused is in possession for the purpose of sale. The burden imposed on the accused in such a case is to satisfy the Court of the probability that they had not intended to traffic any of the substance. Whether the accused has satisfied me of the probability that he had not intended to traffic any of the substance, is the only issue in this case.
The Evidence
The prosecution called three witnesses: Senior Constable Pethers; Constable Lloyd; and Detective Brevet Sergeant Hawgood.
In his evidence in chief, SC Pethers told me that at about 1am on 5 August 2019, he had been on patrol duty with PC Lloyd. He said they had positioned their patrol car in front of a Mercedes, which had two occupants, parked outside a unit complex on Grange Rd, Findon. He had seen one of the two occupants run away.
SC Pethers told me he had a discussion with the other occupant- the accused- who had been handcuffed by his partner. As they had been escorting the accused to the Police car, a white package had fallen from the right side of the accused, in front of his right leg, which the accused had then tried to kick away. The package had been white, wrapped in white paper towel and a little bigger than a golf ball.
Under cross examination, SC Pethers confirmed the Mercedes had reversed into a parking area of the flats; a place of interest to police. He accepted the person who had run away had been a person of interest to him.
In her evidence in chief, PC Lloyd said she had seen the other person leave the scene at a fast-walking pace. She had made no attempt to locate him as she had been dealing with the accused. She had also observed a package, wrapped in a white paper towel, drop from the bottom of the shorts of the accused and the accused move his right leg as though he had been trying to kick it away. She had retrieved the package and checked it into Police property to be decanted and photographed.[4] The decanted substance had been analysed and weighed.[5]
[4] Exhibit P2.
[5] Exhibit P3.
In his evidence in chief, DBS Hawgood established his expertise and experience, as of August 2019, in the investigation of drug trafficking; particularly as to how illicit drugs had been packaged for sale and the prices which had been commonly paid.
DBS Hawgood said that methylamphetamine had been sold at a street level in both small and large quantities and had been usually packaged in resealable plastic bags and tubs. He considered the price range which methylamphetamine had been sold, in the usual quantities, to be: $30 to $50 for a point (.1g); $200 to $250 for 1g; $500 to $700 for an 8-ball (3.5g); $2,400 to $3,200 for 1oz; and $100,000 for 1kg. He said he had come across quantities and prices a bit under or a bit over those usual quantities and prices and that those differences had depended on what the customer had been looking for and had offered to pay. The prices he quoted had varied, he considered, because of product quality, supply and demand and other factors including that given dealers had simply decided to sell at a greater or lesser price. He considered the most common weight for a street level deal had been a point. He accepted that 26.3g had been a quantity that had been commonly sold. Also, he told me, it had been common for methylamphetamine to have been mixed or cut with other agents. The purity of methylamphetamine sold at a street level, he said, could have been up to 80% methylamphetamine. In his opinion, the higher the purity, the higher the price demanded.
DBS Hawgood said the most common way of taking methylamphetamine had been by smoking vapours with an ice or glass pipe and the most common, but not only, dose consumed in that way had been a point (.1g). As a drug investigator, he said he would have expected the presence of some or all of the following to have been indicative of drug trafficking: messages on mobile phones; scales; and tick lists (lists of customers detailing amounts owed). In his opinion, the absence of some, any or all of those indicia, would not necessarily suggest- one way or the other- whether there had been drug dealing.
In cross examination, DBS Hawgood accepted that the consumption of methylamphetamine could vary substantially between users. He accepted the more you buy, generally speaking, the cheaper the product and that he had incorporated that concept into the pricing estimates he had given in his evidence in chief.
The following facts were agreed between prosecution and defence:[6]
1.The bag containing the methylamphetamine was decanted and the drug was booked into the Police Property Management System under system number 20/B76609-16.
2.On 21 August 2019, the drug was transferred to Forensic Science South Australia for examination. The drug was analysed and found to weigh 26.3 g and contained 18.6 g of methylamphetamine.
3.The vehicle driven by the accused was a Mercedes Benz sedan SA registration WTZ 898 which was registered to Enes Agusi. Police attended the home address of Agusi on 28 September 2019. Agusi declined to provide a statement to police.
[6] Exhibit P4.
In his evidence in chief, the accused said he was 23 and currently working for his father building carports and verandas. As of 5 August 2019, the accused said he had been employed for about 12 months doing Hebel wall construction. He said he had worked, during that 12- month period, 6 days a week and anywhere between 8 and 12 hours a day. His daily rate of pay had been $220. He had been paid weekly in cash and had received a weekly ‘tax slip’. He had not retained any of those tax slips as he had moved around houses and had lost his paperwork. From his weekly wage of about $1,320, his weekly living expenses had been $240 on rent and $200 on food and bills. As of 5 August 2019, the accused said he had about $5,000 in savings leftover from cash gifts from his 21^st birthday in November 2018. He said he had dipped into that 21^st money from time to time if he had to.
The accused said that after a couple of months working in Hebel construction, he had started to smoke methylamphetamine. He said he had become an addict, smoking 2-3.5g each week. He said he had used, ‘every morning and whenever [he] could get time to, time to do it at lunch breaks, after work’. He said he had funded his addiction of between $500- $700 a week, from his salary. He said he had stopped smoking on the day he had been arrested and that he had not used methylamphetamine since.
The accused said he had sourced his drugs from just one dealer, known to him as J. He had met J through a friend, and they had an established relationship and routine, getting in touch through the encrypted messaging app ‘Wickr’ and meeting once a week, usually at the Findon pub. They would deal in the car while driving around the block. The accused said he had bought between 2g and 3.5g per week from J for between $500 and $700 every week. At the time of this alleged offending, that had been the arrangement for about a year.
The accused told me that on 5 August 2019, he and J had arranged to meet so he could buy 1oz of methylamphetamine for $2,500. When they had gotten in the car, J said he had a lesser amount and had offered to take $200 off the agreed price of $2500. The accused agreed and had paid J $2,300 in cash for 26.3 g of methylamphetamine. While still in the car, the accused and J had become aware of the police. J had been ‘sketching a little bit’ (getting nervous) and when the accused had parked his car in his apartment complex, J had got out and had ran off. The accused said he had not seen J since.
The accused admitted he had put the drugs down his pants. He said he had done that because he had been worried about getting caught. He accepted the drugs had then fallen out of his shorts in exactly the way the Police had described. He said he had been nervous and had tried to kick the drugs away. He said that the purchase that night had been the biggest he had ever made from J. He said he had bought 26.3 g because J had come to him with the idea of buying an ounce and had said that, ‘instead of once a week, just a bigger amount, less risk, less time usage’.
The accused told me that he had intended to consume all those drugs himself. He said he had not intended to sell any of those drugs nor give any to his mates.
In cross examination, the accused agreed that he had considered it would in fact be riskier for him to be caught with an ounce. He was asked, on that basis, whether the agreement J had suggested, made sense to him. He responded:
A.Well, less times we'd have to see each other.
Q.But if you were caught with that amount, you accept that it would involve more risk for you, if you were found in possession of larger amounts.
A.Yes.
Q.Did you bring that up with J.
A.Yes.
Q.What did he say.
A.Just easier for the both of us.
Q.Did you ask why J would want to sell you meth at a lower cost than he could make from you by selling it to you in points.
A.Would be less times we'd have to see each other, so quicker and easier.
Q.Did you think that this was his business, this was the way he made money.
A.I wouldn't know.
The accused was also cross examined about quitting drugs and what he had said about previous usage:
Q.So you just quit cold turkey.
A.Yeah, I moved back to live with my parents, so.
Q.After using two or three and a half grams a week.
A.Yep.
Q.So do you accept that having bought an ounce, roughly an ounce, and using either two or three and a half grams a week, you had between seven and a half weeks and 13 weeks supply.
A.Yeah.
Q.And at this time you were employed, and could you just describe again what your role was.
A.I was doing Hebel, so wall constructions on residential houses.
Q.Is that quite manual labour.
A.Yep.
Q.You said you were an addict at this time.
A.Yeah.
Q.Did that ever interfere with your work.
A.No.
Q.It never interfered with your work.
A.What do you mean like, by interfered?
Q.Were you under the influence of methylamphetamine while you were at work.
A.Yes, Yes.
Q.Every day.
A.Every day, yeah.
…….
Q.Did anyone ever speak to you about your behaviour at work.
A.Not about my behaviour, no.
Q.How long had you been employed in that job.
A.Over a year.
Q.How soon into getting that job did you start using.
A.Maybe two months.
Closing address of the Prosecution
Ms Tabutaeu, for the prosecution, submitted each element of the offence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. She noted the accused had not disputed he had put the drugs down his shorts when he had seen police and that the package had fallen from his shorts.
The prosecution submitted that I should not accept the evidence of the accused because there had been nothing other than his evidence to support his story and that his story had not made sense.[7] Particularly, it was submitted, the accused had exaggerated his use of methylamphetamine to explain why he had been in possession of an ounce. Specifically, the prosecution submitted, the following parts of the evidence given by the accused had not made sense:
·that he had purchased between 7 to13 weeks’ worth of supply at once;
·it had been more profitable to sell 26.3g of methylamphetamine in points, because it would have returned him between $7,890 and $13,150;[8]
·that J had suggested a sale of between 7 to13 weeks supply for just $2,500, when J could have continued to sell the accused 2 to 3.5g a week for $500 to $700 and made much more money;
·that the accused had managed to hold his employment for twelve months, doing quite manual work for long hours, 6 days a week, at a small business with three employees and for an employer who had not been family, while intoxicated and smoking significant amounts of methylamphetamine; and
·that despite being addicted the accused had not, since his arrest, seen his dealer of one year and had never used methylamphetamine again.
[7] Controlled Substances Act 1984, s 32(5).
[8] T34.32-35.4.
The prosecution accepted there had been no obligation on the accused to produce evidence of his income. Nonetheless submitted the prosecution, the income of the accused had not been established by any objective evidence as he had not produced pay slips, tax returns or letter from his employer confirming his employment.
Submissions of the accused
Mr Allen QC, for the accused, submitted that a good way to assess reliability and credibility was to look at the absence or presence of internal inconsistency and the presence or absence of external inconsistency or any clash with objective evidence. In that respect, he submitted, there had been nothing internally inconsistent about the clear evidence of the accused concerning his employment, his addiction and how this drug deal had come about and that nothing the accused had said cut across or clashed with anything which had been put by the prosecution.
Further, Mr Allen suggested, a good starting point for my assessment of the evidence of the accused would be to consider how it had held together against the evidence of DBS Hawgood. In that respect, the accused submitted, his evidence had sat comfortably with what DBS Hawgood had said because:
·there had been an absence of the usual indicia of drug dealing;
·the price paid for 26.3g of methylamphetamine had been within the appropriate range for that quantity of drugs;
·the amount of drugs sold had depended on the amount available or the amount requested by the customer;
·the transaction reflected the flexibility and the economic reality of the more purchased, the cheaper it is; and,
·a bulk purchase made sense as the accused had been using between 2 -3.5g a week and on multiple occasions each day.
Regardless, the accused submitted, this should not be a trial by mathematics. Just because this Court, day in and day out, has been told that a tonne of methylamphetamine if sold in points would be worth $10 million, does not translate the evidence of the accused as showing he had been a drug dealer. Just because, submitted Mr Allen, the accused had been in possession of $13,000 worth of methylamphetamine, if sold in points, does not make good the proposition of the prosecution. The statement of the accused, it was submitted, when he had said, ‘I worked hard for these drugs, why would I give them to someone else?', had sat comfortably with his admission of addiction.
Mr Allen did not accept the proposition there had in fact been a greater risk in a 1oz transaction with J. Rather, he submitted, the riskiest time for being caught had been at the time of the deal itself. That meant, in this case, that by purchasing 26g the accused would have had to meet his dealer between 7 and 13 times less.
Further, the accused submitted, a very important piece of evidence ‘corroborative’ of the accused’s version had been that the police had seen the drug dealer running off into the flats. That had been, said the accused, exactly what the accused had said his drug dealer had done when ‘he sketched out’.
The accused submitted his explanation of personal use had been cogent and fitted. It had been unfair, his counsel submitted, for the prosecution to be critical about how the accused had held down a job as a methylamphetamine addict because there had been no evidence about the accused’s relationship with his boss, apart from the fact that he had not been a family member.
Further, Mr Allen asked me to have regard to the experience of this Court, which showed that people had worked utilising what they perceived to be the assistance of methylamphetamine. He suggested the Court would be familiar with examples of truck drivers or persons in the construction industry who had used drugs, because they perceived it had assisted them to work.

As for the absence of written employment records, Mr Allen submitted that there had been no onus on the accused to provide any documentary evidence or to produce any witnesses to corroborate his account.
Consideration
I have accepted the evidence of Police officers Pethers and Lloyd, the contents of the certificate of analysis and, the agreed facts.[9] As for the evidence of DBS Hawgood, I accept him as an expert. I also accept the evidence of the accused where it had been consistent with the evidence of SC Pethers and PC Lloyd.
[9] Exhibits P3 and P4.
Having assessed the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the substance had been a controlled drug; that the amount of methylamphetamine found had been a traffickable quantity; and, that the accused had been in “possession” of that substance.[10]
[10] Controlled Substances Act 1984, s 4.
Being so satisfied, the prosecution relied upon the legislative presumption that the accused had been in possession of 26.3g of methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale. To rebut that presumption the accused had to satisfy me, on the balance of probabilities, that he had not been in possession of that traffickable quantity for the purpose of sale.[11] If the accused failed to do so, then I must find him guilty of the charged offence. If I accept the evidence of the accused, then I must find him not guilty of the charged offence and guilty of the alternative offence of simple possession.
[11] Controlled Substances Act 1984, s 32(5).
This case therefore has come down to whether I accept the evidence of the accused that he had possession of 26.3g of methylamphetamine for his sole personal use.
It is for me to decide how much or how little of the evidence I believe or rely on. I may believe all, some or none of the evidence. It is also for me to decide what weight should be attached to any particular evidence, and the extent to which that evidence helps me to determine the relevant issues.
In assessing the evidence of the accused and the weight to be given to it, I have approached the task in the same way as with any other witness and it is for me to decide what weight I am prepared to attach to the evidence of the accused in the same way as I would for any other witness.
I have assessed the credibility and reliability of the accused. Credibility concerns honesty – is the witness telling the truth? Reliability may be different. A witness may be honest but have a poor memory or be mistaken.
I have used common sense in making my assessment of the evidence in this case. I have appreciated that giving evidence in a trial is not a common thing to do and may be a stressful experience. I have not jumped to conclusions based on how the accused gave evidence. Looks can be deceiving. People react and appear differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds, and have different abilities, values and life experiences. There are too many variables to make the way a witness gave evidence the only, or even the most important factor, in assessing his evidence and in making a decision.
The evidence of the accused, that he had possession of 26.3g of methylamphetamine for personal use, was premised on two interlinked propositions. First, that he had funded the $2300 purchase from his income doing Hebel and,[12] second, that J had proposed a bulk purchase because it had made sense to both him and the accused. While Mr Allen submitted this should not be a trial by mathematics, the accused version of events was dependent on acceptance of both the arithmetic he proffered in respect of his weekly spend, and the view expressed by his dealer that a bulk purchase was compelling for them both. Having put his case in that way, a financial and economic analysis is necessary.
[12] While the accused said the deal was agreed at $2300, the accused said he had $2500 on him.
When the accused gave evidence, he presented as a clear eyed, fit young man of muscular build. He said he was currently working with his father undertaking the construction of carports and verandas. He said he had not used methylamphetamine since 5 August 2019, a period of about 2 years and 3 months.
At the time of this offending, the accused said he had been an addict for twelve months. He had also said that for about twelve months prior he had been doing Hebel construction of residential houses in a business with only three employees (including the boss). His employer had not been a family member. He agreed that work was ‘quite manual’. He had worked, over that twelve months, long hours; 8-12 hours a day or between 48 and 72 hours a week, six days a week. He had been paid net $220 a day or net $1320 a week. From those weekly earnings, he said he had paid each week $250 for rent and $200 for bills and living expenses and $500- $700 to J for methylamphetamine.
The accused had not produced any written proof of his employment or income to support his evidence that he had funded his addiction from his wages. He had not produced any of the weekly tax slips given to him in the year before his arrest as he said he had lost them when he moved to a new house and he had not been good with paperwork. He was not obliged to produce his tax returns or a letter from his employer at trial, but he had assumed the onus to prove the probability of possession for personal use and such objective records would have supported his evidence that he had lawfully funded his expenses and that level of personal use for the twelve month period. Tax records are retained by the Australian Tax Office and must also be kept by employers. At least the ATO records would have been producible with effort and his failure to do so means that I only have the oral evidence of the accused in that respect.
I consider the consumption of 2- 3.5g of methylamphetamine per week to be significant drug use. The addiction of the accused had consumed a significant portion of his income and involved him smoking in the morning, at lunch while at work and after work. The accused had, on his case, needed to work 6 days a week because any lesser wage would not have funded his habit and his other expenses.
Mr Allen urged me to accept the evidence of addictive use and that it had been funded from weekly earnings. That premised the submission that the bulk purchase made sense. Mr Allen submitted that I could, in accepting that evidence, have regard to the experience of this Court that people worked in construction utilising what they perceived to be the assistance of methylamphetamine.
Judicial notice may be taken of facts which can be called upon from a general knowledge of them, or from inquiries to be made from information or sources to which it is proper to refer and from such uncontentious matters the Court is assumed to know.[13] Mr Allen did not refer me to any information or sources to which it would be proper to refer in order to demonstrate that people work in construction utilising what they perceive to be the assistance of methylamphetamine. Without such evidence, I will not take such notice.
[13] Commonwealth Shipping Representative v P & O Branch Service [1923] AC 191, [212].
I have taken notice of the general knowledge that methylamphetamine use is prevalent in our community and is associated with violence, poor health and financial impoverishment. Further, I have had regard to the evidence of DBS Hawgood and the accused which established that drug trafficking is conducted for profit and is financially exploitative. As DBS Hawgood explained, the trade in illicit drugs is subject to the laws of economics and the illicit market functions in a manner similar to the licit market.
Having noted those matters, it is the circumstances of the accused that is in issue in this case, and it is those circumstances, which I have assessed. I have applied my common sense and experience in my consideration of the evidence of the accused and DBS Hawgood.
I consider that the sustained use and addiction, as described by the accused over the 12 months prior to his arrest, would have impacted his ability to perform quite manual labour- six days a week and for 8-12 hours a day. I also consider that such constant and significant use would have likely led to some absenteeism, poor performance and unreliability. Notwithstanding, the accused said that no one at work had spoken to him about his behaviour. I also consider that the drug use the accused detailed would have impacted his ability to sustain his employment and, if he had been able to sustain it, his ability to have earned enough to fund his methylamphetamine addiction.
The prosecution submitted that the accused had exaggerated his drug use in order to support the proposition that an acquisition of such a large quantity, for his sole personal use, made sense. That the Parliament has fixed 2g of methylamphetamine as the threshold for simple possession demonstrates that the accused possessed a significant amount of drugs; 13 times that quantity.[14]
[14] Controlled Substances Act 1984, and the Controlled Substance (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014, Schedule 1.
The accused had been clear that J had said he thought the bulk purchase of 26.3g made sense for them both. That evidence must be assessed in the context of a dealer-addict relationship and the specific relationship between the accused and J. The accused said J had been his sole supplier and that they had met regularly for about a year and that J had sold him 2- 3.5g a week at the market rate of $500- $700. That meant the accused had spent between $26,000 and $36,400 on product sold to him by J over the previous 12 months. I consider it had been in the interest of J to simply continue as they had. J had been under no pressure from the accused to change that arrangement; which the accused considered to be established.
Mr Allen put the proposition that the 1oz deal had in fact been less risky for the accused because he would have needed to meet his dealer between 7 and 13 times less. While that was the submission, the evidence of the accused was to the contrary. He said that being caught with a larger quantity had represented a greater risk to him and that is what he had thought at the time. The accused said in cross-examination that he had brought that greater risk up with J.
In terms of the risk and return trade-off for J, a 1oz transaction with the accused put him in a worse position. A drug dealer must carry drugs or have an available source to give to customers. Being caught with drugs is an obvious business risk of dealing, which a dealer might mitigate by carrying the least amount necessary. By proposing a 1 oz deal, J risked being caught with at least 13 times the traffickable quantity for a much lesser financial return than the established dealing pattern of the previous twelve months.
I have had regard to the absence of the usual indicia of sale. In that respect, DBS Hawgood said that he would expect some indicia but that the absence of some or any or all of the usual indicia would not necessarily suggest, one way or the other, drug dealing.
Mr Allen contended one of the most important pieces of corroborative evidence to be that of the two police officers who ‘had seen the drug dealer running off into the flats, legging it’.[15] While SC Pethers accepted the man running away had been a person of interest, it was the accused who had said that person had been his drug dealer. The evidence of the officers did not corroborate the evidence of the accused that the other occupant had been his drug dealer; just that the other person had ran off.
[15] T43. 17- 23.
Having assessed the whole of the evidence, I do consider the evidence of the accused to be implausible. It does not make sense that:
·the accused, while intoxicated and drug addicted, while smoking in the morning, at lunch time at work and after work, had been able to hold down, for twelve months, a 6 day a week, 8-12 hours a day, job in quite manual Hebel construction, and without anyone speaking to him about his behaviour; and,
·J, having received from the accused between $26,000 to $36,400 over the previous year, had proposed a change to that arrangement, without being asked, to receive considerably less.[16]
[16] $2,500 every 7 weeks equates on a per annum basis to 7.42 x 2,500 = $18,550 per annum; $2,500 every 13 weeks equates on a per annum basis to 4 x $2,500 = $10,000 per annum.
I do not accept the evidence of the accused that he had possession of 26.3g of methylamphetamine for his sole personal use. The accused has not satisfied me that he had possession of 26.3g for his personal use. I do consider it more likely than not that the accused had possession of 26.3g of methylamphetamine for the purpose of sale. I find the accused guilty of the single count of drug trafficking as charged.