R v Rowan No. Sccrm-02-371, Sccrm-02-372

The appellant was convicted and sentenced for possession of a quantity of cannabis exceeding the prescribed amount of 100 grams, triggering a statutory presumption of possession for the purpose of sale. The appeal against conviction and sentence raises the question of whether the statutory presumption of possession for sale, as provided in section 32(3) of the Act, is correctly applied when the possession of cannabis exceeds the prescribed amount. The court had to determine whether the statutory presumption of possession for sale is valid and if the judge correctly applied it in directing the jury.

The court examined the statutory presumption under section 32(3) of the Act and its application in this case. The appellant argued that there was no evidence indicating an intent to sell and that the presumption was incorrectly applied by the judge. The court found that the statutory presumption was correctly identified and applied by the judge, and the jury likely proceeded on that basis. The court also considered the sentencing issue, which hinged on whether the judge correctly applied the presumption of possession for sale in determining the sentence.

The court concluded that the statutory presumption of possession for sale is valid and appropriately applied in this case. The presumption was correctly identified and applied by the judge, and the jury likely proceeded on that basis. The court found no error in the application of the statutory presumption or in the sentencing decision. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed, and the court agreed with the reasons expressed by the Chief Justice.

The court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The reasoning was that the statutory presumption of possession for sale, as provided in section 32(3) of the Act, was correctly identified and applied by the judge. The court agreed with the Chief Justice that the appeals against conviction and sentence should be dismissed.