R v Young (NO.2) - [2023] SADC 116

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v YOUNG (NO.2)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 116
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Durrant
28 August 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
Lease of warehouse premises in name of accused - keys to warehouse found in car of accused - screenshots on phone of accused of inside of warehouse showing scattered items necessary to grow hydroponic cannabis - attendances by accused at warehouse - search of warehouse revealed plants growing hydroponically and dried cannabis in kitchen - notebook and instructions to grow cannabis - car similar to that of accused seen near warehouse - indicia of trafficking found in home of accused.
Verdict:
1. Guilty of cultivating controlled plants for sale.
2. Guilty of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabis.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 4, 32, 33; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 (SA) s 12; Electricity Act 1996 (SA) s 85, referred to.
BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR; AK v Western Australia [2008] 232 CLR 438; Aiken v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 213; R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150; R v Parisi (2014) 119 SASR 277, considered.

R v YOUNG (NO.2)
[2023] SADC 116
Introduction

Nathan Jon Young has pleaded not guilty to cultivating controlled plants for sale and trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug.[1]
[1] Information for arraignment on 17 June 2022; Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 32(1), 33B(3).
The prosecution bears the onus to prove that on 8 September 2021, at Wingfield, the accused cultivated controlled plants, knowing or being reckless to the fact they were controlled plants and intending to sell any of them or their products or believing another person intended to sell any of them or their products.
The prosecution bears the onus to prove that on 8 September 2021, at Wingfield, the accused trafficked in a large quantity of a controlled drug, namely cannabis, knowing or being reckless to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
I have found Nathan Young guilty of both cultivating controlled plants for sale and trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug.[2]
[2] Juries Act 1927 (SA), s 7.
My reasons for doing so follow.[3]
[3] 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’; BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34 [14]; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia [2008] 232 CLR 438; Aiken v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 213; Nonetheless, I have applied the relevant principles, set out in R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150 at [11]-[25].
The case for the prosecution
Trial on the papers
Pre-trial, I dismissed an application by the accused to exclude evidence derived from police searches of 7 George Street, Wingfield on 8 and 9 September 2021.[4] The trial proceeded ‘on the papers’.[5] There was no cross-examination or defence case and the prosecution opening served also as its closing address.
The elements of cultivating controlled plants for sale
[4] Interlocutory Application filed 1 March 2023 (FDN10); Joint Criminal Rules R39(1); Record of Outcome (FDN36); R v Young [2023] SADC 114.
[5] Exhibit P1 Brief of Evidence comprising 17 tabs.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt three elements of the offence of cultivating controlled plants for sale:[6] (1) the accused cultivated cannabis; (2) he cultivated a trafficable quantity of cannabis; and (3) he intended to sell the cannabis or the products of the cannabis.
The elements of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug
[6] Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 33B (3), (5).
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt five elements of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug: (1) cannabis is a controlled drug; (2) there is a large commercial quantity of that drug; (3) the accused knew the substance was a controlled drug; (4) he trafficked the drug; and (5) he intended to traffic the quantity which is a large quantity of the drug.
The established facts
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the following established facts.
At all relevant times, the warehouse building and land at 7 Georges St, Wingfield (the property) was owned by Louie Bouras and Betty Bouras.[7]
[7] Exhibit P1 Tab 15 Affidavit of Louie Bouras at [2].
By written lease dated 16 July 2019, the owners let the property from 1 August 2019, for three years, to ‘Nathan Young trading as Youngbuilt’.[8] The lessee paid the rent on time to the bank account of the lessors.[9]
[8] Exhibit P1 Tab 15 Affidavit of Louie Bouras, Annexure LB1 at [1].
[9] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Louie Bouras at [5].
On 16 July 2019, the lessee signed an acknowledgement of the exclusion of the lessor’s warranty of fitness for purpose in the presence of a witness personally known to him or satisfied of his identity as Nathan Young.[10]
[10] Retail and Commercial Leases Regulations 2010 (SA) r 6; Ibid at Annexure LB1 at [39]; The witness provided her full name, address, and phone number.
On 19 July 2019, the lessee receipted a Disclosure Statement as Nathan Young of 5A Day Street, Sturt 5047. The accused lives at that address.[11]
[11] Exhibit P1 Tab 17 Certificate of Title Vol 5908 Folio 724; Exhibit P1, Tab 3 Affidavit of Jake Renko dated 27 December 2021 at [16].
Louie Bouras met the tenant at the property on 1 August 2019, and gave him the alarm combination, padlock keys to the front gate and keys for the front door.[12]
[12] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Louie Bouras at [6].
Screenshots on the phone of the accused taken on 12 April 2020, and 20 April 2020, show ducting, electrical wiring, switches, and lights scattered around the floor of the inside of the property.[13]
[13] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling dated 29 October 2021, Photographs HS-1 [8]- [9].
The phone of the accused travelled from 5A Day St, Sturt and remained at the property: on 2 July 2021, from 3.40pm until 4.03pm;[14] on 6 July 2021, (going to ‘Everything Hydroponics’ at Blair Athol before the property) from 4.16pm until 6.13pm;[15] on 9 July 2021, from 5.11pm until 2.29am;[16] on 19 July 2021, from 8.26pm until 11.41pm;[17] on 19 August 2021, from 11.23pm until 12.51am;[18] on 1 September 2021, from 1.10am until 1.33am;[19] and on 6 September 2021, from 10.12pm until 12.33am.[20]
[14] Ibid, Photographs HS-1 [12]- [13].
[15] Ibid at [15]- [16] and [18].
[16] Ibid at [19]- [20].
[17] Ibid at [22]- [23].
[18] Ibid at [25]- [27].
[19] Ibid at [28]- [29].
[20] Ibid at [32]- [33].
At about 8pm on 8 September 2021, police searched the property and found tents inside cool rooms and 16 cannabis plants growing hydroponically with lights, electrical transformers, a water supply, extractors, fans, ducting, and filters.[21]
[21] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [7]- [10]; Exhibit P1, Tab 5 Affidavit of Courtney Gray dated 9 November 2021 at [23]; Being prescribed equipment as defined by Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 s 9(1)(a).
A small kitchen in the property contained drying racks and 5.5kgs of dried female flowering cannabis hanging in drying baskets.[22]
[22] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [10]; Exhibit P1 Tab 10 Certificate of Analysis dated 20 September 2021.
A trailer registered to the accused was parked within the main area.[23] On a table in that main area was a copy of the lease for the property and an Australia Post parcel addressed to Nathan Young of 5A Day St, Sturt.[24]
[23] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [10]; Exhibit P1 Tab 2 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling dated 11 November 2022 at [6] and Annexure RC-01.
[24] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [10]; Exhibit P1 Tab 5 Affidavit of Courtney Gray at [22], CG01 photographs 19 and 20; Exhibit P1 Tab 7, Affidavit of Miriam Scott at [9].
A black notepad at the property contained a list of items (including their cost) required to hydroponically grow cannabis, and the cost of rent and a bond.[25] Taped onto a wall were typewritten instructions for cannabis cultivation.[26] The electricity supply to the property had been diverted and unlawfully abstracted.[27]
[25] Exhibit P1 Tab 2 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [7], Annexure RC-02, Annexure Photo-25.
[26] Exhibit P1 Tab 5 Affidavit of Courtney Gray dated 9 November 2021 at [22], CG01 photographs 10, 11, 12 and 13.
[27] Exhibit P1 Tab 16 Statement of Darren Winter dated 2 February 2022 at [2]; Electricity Act 1996 (SA) s 85.
On 9 September 2021, the accused’s phone travelled 37km- departing at 1.43am from 5A Day St, Sturt - to several locations, including the property.[28] At about 2.00am, police saw a late model blue Holden Commodore sedan pull up next to the driveway of the property.[29] As they approached, it reversed quickly and left.[30]
[28] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling, Annexure HS-1 at [34]- [37].
[29] Exhibit P1 Tab 14 Affidavit of Lucy Minerds dated 11 September 2021 at [10].
[30] Ibid at [11]- [12].
At 8.40am, also on 9 September 2021, police attended 5A Day St, Sturt. The accused was living there, and his 2003 blue Holden Commodore sedan was at that address. Inside that car police found:[31] keys to the front gate and the front door of the property;[32] six large garbage bags containing cannabis remnants; a Bunnings receipt for a 10 pack of large vacuum seal bags; and the registration for the trailer.[33]
[31] Exhibit P1, Tab 2 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [6] and Annexure RC-02.
[32] Exhibit P1 Tab 6 Affidavit of Julie Edange dated 25 October 2021 at [15]; Exhibit P1 Tab 7, Affidavit of Miriam Scott at [15] and [19].
[33] Exhibit P1 Tab 6 Affidavit of Julie Edange at [15]; Exhibit P1 Tab 7, Affidavit of Miriam Scott at [10].
Police analysed the mobile of the accused.[34] As well as the screenshots and the travel records already mentioned, they found four photographs of cannabis.[35]
[34] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [13]- [14].
[35] Ibid, Annexure HS-1 at [2]- [5].
Inside a black notebook in the master bedroom police found: a handwritten tick list;[36] instructions to flush and drain; comments about yellowing and blooming;[37] and a list of costs.[38] Expert analysis provided strong support at least two pages had been written by the accused.[39]
[36] Exhibit P1 Tab 8 Affidavit of Aaron Nathan O’Malley dated 6 June 2023 at [36]-[37]; Noting addresses, phone numbers and dollar sums.
[37] Exhibit P1 Tab 6 Affidavit of Julie Edange, Annexure NYP002 at [32].
[38] Exhibit P1 Tab 2 Affidait of Hannah Stirling, Annexure Photo-25.
[39] Exhibit P1 Tab 11, Statement of Elizabeth Ockleshaw dated 16 February 2022 at [3]- [5].
In the loungeroom, police found 31.6gm of dried cannabis, vacuum sealable bags, a glass bong, and the passport of the accused.[40]
[40] Exhibit P1 Tab 6 Affidavit of Julie Edange at [15], Annexure NYP001 at [4], Annexure NYP002 at [9].
In a bedroom, police found fertilizer products and substrates; in the shed, drying racks, light shades; and in the garage a hand sprayer, substrates, and soil.[41]
[41] Ibid at [17], Annexure NYP002 at [15]- [16], [30]- [31], [35].
The submissions of the defence
Mr Christey, for the accused, urged a verdict of not guilty as the prosecution had not excluded reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.
There was, he submitted, insufficient evidence to establish an intention to sell or traffic. The absence of common indicators of intention or acts- unexplained wealth, large amounts of cash, counting machines, weapons, mobiles or encrypted devices or incriminating text messages- were fatal to the prosecution case.[42]
[42] See Exhibit P1, Tab 8 Affidavit of Aaron Nathan O’Malley dated 6 June 2023 at [36].
While scales are sometimes indicative of trafficking, it was submitted, they can be used for legitimate purposes and the bong was clearly for personal use. That provided, it was submitted, proof to the contrary of the presumptions which arises if I am satisfied the accused cultivated or had possession of a trafficable quantity of cannabis or had the relevant intention or belief to constitute the offences.
Mere presence of the accused at the warehouse, it was submitted, was not enough to prove an act of cultivation because no accused DNA nor fingerprints were found at the property and the lessors had not identified him as the tenant.
As there was no evidence how the paperwork, parcel or trailer had got to the property, it was submitted, it was reasonably consistent with innocence the only involvement of the accused at the property was to store his items.
Consideration
Wholly circumstantial case and the drawing of inferences
The prosecution case is wholly circumstantial. To find facts absent direct evidence inferences or conclusions can be drawn from facts established by direct evidence if a logical and rational connection exists.
In determining whether to draw an inference the combined strength of the facts established must be considered; not any one fact in isolation. Regard must be had to the totality of the circumstances and their united force. Assessment of the combined effect of accepted items of circumstantial evidence and whether as a matter of inference they prove the accused committed the offence is required.
The possibility circumstantial evidence does not point to guilt must be kept in mind and a guilty verdict cannot be returned unless the circumstances relied upon exclude any rational or reasonable hypothesis, theory, or explanation consistent with innocence. To establish the state of mind of the accused, the prosecution must exclude other possible explanations.
Discreditable conduct evidence and its permissible use
Evidence the accused engaged in trafficking the dried cannabis and intended to sell one or more of the plants cultivated or the products of those plants or that he believed another person intended to sell one or more of the plants or their products, is evidence of discreditable conduct.
If I accept that evidence, I can only use it to establish the accused was in the business of selling cannabis and more likely to have engaged in acts of trafficking and intended to sell one or more of the plants. I have not used it in any other way.
The photographs of cannabis, the remnants in the six garbage bags and the dried cannabis in the lounge are also items of discreditable conduct evidence.
If I accept the photographs, I can only use them to demonstrate the accused had an interest in cannabis and its products. I have not used them in any other way.
If I accept the garbage bags, I can only use them to demonstrate the accused had an interest in cannabis and its products and as a circumstantial fact making it more likely he was in possession of the dried cannabis and the plants or committed a relevant act of trafficking or cultivating. I have not used them otherwise.
If I accept the 31.4gms of dried cannabis, I can only use it to demonstrate the accused had an interest in cannabis and its products. I have not used that otherwise.
I do not consider attendance at Everything Hydroponics is discreditable conduct. If I infer the accused went there, I will use that evidence only as a circumstantial fact to demonstrate an interest in hydroponics.
What inferences have been drawn?
Having regard to the whole of the evidence and using the discreditable conduct evidence only as permitted, I have considered what inferences to draw.
The lessee was ‘Nathan Young’. That lessee signed to acknowledge the Disclosure Statement. The lessee’s signature was also witnessed in the lease by a person known to Nathan Young of 5A Day St, Sturt or who was satisfied of that identity.[43]
[43] Retail and Commercial Leases Regulations 2010 (SA) R6; Exhibit P1 Tab 16 Affidavit of Louis Bouras, Annexure LB1 at [39].
The lessee attended at the property on commencement of the lease to meet the lessor who gave him the alarm code and keys to the front gate and door. Over two years later, keys to the front door and gate were found in the car of the accused.
A black notepad found at the property listed items needed to hydroponically grow cannabis.[44] Images taken on the accused’s phone on 12 and 20 April 2020, showed ducting, electrical wires, switches, and lights- items used to grow hydroponic cannabis- scattered on the floor of the property.[45]
[44] Exhibit P1, Tab 2 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [7].
[45] Ibid, [8]-[9].
By the time police searched the property on 8 September 2021, a hydroponics set up had been constructed using ducting, electrical wires, switches, and lights. The electricity to the property had been abstracted to grow cannabis hydroponically.[46] The phone of the accused showed he travelled from his home to the property and remained there for lengthy periods late at night until the early hours. Typewritten instructions to grow cannabis had been taped up on the wall.[47]
[46] Ibid; Electricity Act 1996 (SA) s 85.
[47] Exhibit P1 Tab 5 Affidavit of Courtney Gray dated 9 November 2021 at [22], CG01 photographs 10, 11, 12 and 13.
On 9 September 2021, the phone of the accused showed it travelled from his home at 1.43am to the location of the property.[48] At about 2.00am, police had seen a late model blue Holden Commodore sedan, like that owned by the accused, pull up to the warehouse and reverse quickly away when approached.[49]
[48] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling, Annexure HS-1 at [34]-[37].
[49] Exhibit P1 Tab 14 Affidavit of Lucy Minerds dated 11 September 2021 at [10]- [11]; Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling, Annexure HS-1 at [34]- [37]. Noting that there is no timestamp of the accused attending the property as his vehicle was present only momentarily.
In the small kitchen at the property, there was 5.5kgs of dried female flowering cannabis hanging in drying baskets.[50] Four photographs of cannabis were on the phone of the accused. Inside his blue Commodore sedan were six large garbage bags containing cannabis remnants, a Bunnings receipt for a 10 pack of large vacuum seal bags like those used to store and sell cannabis and, in his master bedroom, was a black notebook containing a handwritten tick list.[51]
[50] Exhibit P1 Tab 1 Affidavit of Hannah Stirling at [10]; Exhibit P1 Tab 10 Certificate of Analysis dated 20 September 2021.
[51] Exhibit P1 Tab 8 Affidavit of Aaron Nathan O’Malley dated 6 June 2023 at [36]-[37]; Noting addresses, phone numbers and dollar sums.
In the loungeroom and shed at the home of the accused there was 31.6gm of dried cannabis, vacuum sealable bags, drying racks and light shades.[52]
[52] Exhibit P1 Tab 6 Affidavit of Julie Edange at [15], Annexure NYP001 at [4], Annexure NYP002 at [9].
In my consideration of what inferences can be drawn, I have considered what the defence submitted about the scales, the bong and the trailer, parcel, and paperwork. In doing so, I have not looked at those items in isolation.
Whether some or all possible indicia of trafficking are found in a particular case depends on its individual circumstances.[53] As Mr Christey accepted, scales may indicate trafficking. In this case, police found other indicia as well: a tick list; vacuum seal bags; a receipt for vacuum seal bags; and residue in large bags.
[53] Exhibit P1 Tab 8 Affidavit of Aaron Nathan O’Malley dated 6 June 2023 at [36].

Even if I accept the trailer, paperwork, and parcel had been stored at the property, that does not provide an explanation consistent with innocence. The whole of the involvement with and attendance at the property must be considered.
Having assessed all the established facts, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution has excluded any rational or reasonable hypothesis, theory, or explanation consistent with innocence. I have also considered that to establish the state of mind of the accused the prosecution must exclude other possible explanations.
In all the circumstances and from the whole of the evidence, I infer the accused: leased the property; acquired the plant and equipment, substances and materials for the hydroponic fit out at the property; stored the plants and equipment, substances and material for the hydroponic growing of cannabis at the property; carried, transported, loaded and unloaded that plant or equipment, substances and materials for the hydroponic growing of cannabis at the property; guarded and concealed the plants and equipment, substances and materials for the hydroponic growing of cannabis at the property; provided and allowed the use of the property for the hydroponic growing of cannabis; was involved in growing and looking after the plants growing hydroponically at the property; planted a seed, seedling or cutting of the plants or transplanted the plants at the property; nurtured, tended and grew the plants at the property; harvested the plants (including by picking any part of the plants) at the property; dried harvested parts of the plants at the property; took part in the process of cultivation of the plants at the property; intended to sell the plants at the property or their products or believed another person intended to sell them or their products; and intended to sell the dried cannabis at the property or believed another person would sell the dried cannabis.
Satisfaction of the elements of cultivating controlled plants for sale
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused cultivated the cannabis plants found at the property.
Cultivating a plant is defined as:[54]
(a)plant a seed, seedling or cutting of the plant or transplant the plant; or
(b)nurture, tend or grow the plant; or
(c)harvest the plant (including pick any part of the plant or separate any resin or other substance from the plant); or
(d)dry the harvested plant or part of the plant;
(e)take part in the process of cultivation of the plant.
[54] Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4(1).
A person takes part in the process of cultivation of a plant if the person directs, takes, or participates in any step, or causes any step to be taken, in the process of cultivation.[55] Steps in the process of cultivation of a plant include:[56]
(a)acquiring the plant or equipment, substances or materials;
(b)storing the plant or equipment, substances or material;
(c)carrying, transporting, loading or unloading the plant or equipment, substances or materials;
(d)guarding or concealing the plant or equipment, substances or materials;
(e)providing or arranging finance (including finance for the acquisition of the plant or equipment, substances or materials);
(f)providing or allowing the use of premises or jointly occupying premises.
[55] Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4(4).
[56] Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4(7). For the purpose of this list, “materials includes seeds, seedlings and cuttings”: Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4(8).
A controlled plant is defined as:[57]
a growing cannabis plant or a cutting of a cannabis plant (provided that the cutting has been planted or otherwise placed in a growing medium) or any other plant declared by the regulations to be a controlled plant for the purposes of this Act.
[57] Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4(1).
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused cultivated a trafficable quantity of cannabis.
A trafficable quantity in respect of cannabis plants is 10 plants.[58] Police found 16 cannabis plants.
[58] Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 (SA), Sch 3.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused intended to sell the cannabis or the products of the cannabis.
The Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) contains a reverse onus provision in relation to proof of the intention to sell if it is proved that the accused cultivated a trafficable quantity of a controlled plant. It is presumed ‘in the absence of proof to the contrary, that [he] had the relevant intention or belief concerning the sale of the plants or their products necessary to constitute the offence’.
The defence only needs to show that something is more probable than not. The defence submitted the accused did not intend to sell the cannabis plants or their products because not all the indicia of trafficking were present, and the bong found at the accused’s house suggested the dried cannabis was for personal use.
Having considered that submission and having drawn the inferences detailed, I am not satisfied it is more probable than not the accused did not intend to sell the plants or their products and the presumption is displaced.
Satisfaction of the elements of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt cannabis is a controlled drug.[59]
[59] Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4; R v Parisi (2014) 119 SASR 277; [2014] SASCFC 57 at [21]-[25].
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt 5.5kg of cannabis exceeds the 2kg threshold and is a large commercial quantity of that drug.[60]
[60] Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 (SA), Sch 3.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, having drawn the inferences detailed, the accused knew the substance was a controlled drug.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, having drawn the inferences detailed, the accused trafficked the drug.
A person traffics a drug when they possess it intending to sell it or for the purpose of taking part in the process of selling it. A person with possession of at least 250gms of cannabis is presumed intending to sell it or possess it for the purpose of taking part in the process of selling it. For the reasons already explained, the accused had possession of the dried cannabis in the kitchen. He had the power and intention to exercise control over that cannabis to the exclusion of others.
Again, it is presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary he had the relevant intention or belief concerning the sale of the plants or their products necessary to constitute the offence.
The defence submitted more probably than not the accused did not intend to sell the dried cannabis as not all indicia of trafficking were present, and the bong found suggested personal use.
Having considered that and having drawn the inferences detailed, I am not satisfied it is more probable than not the accused did not intend to sell the dried cannabis such that the presumption is displaced.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, having drawn the inferences I have, the accused intended to traffic the quantity which is a large quantity of the drug.
Verdict
I find the accused guilty of cultivating controlled plants for sale (count 1) and trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug (count 2).