Wooldridge v The King

The appellant, Wooldridge, appealed against his conviction and sentence for drug offences. The prosecution's case was that the appellant possessed a significant quantity of cannabis with the intention to sell, and that he cultivated six juvenile cannabis plants with the intention to sell them or their products. The appellant admitted possession and cultivation but maintained the cannabis was for personal use, making the sole issue at trial the appellant's intention to sell. The prosecution relied on a statutory presumption of possession for sale in relation to the harvested cannabis and inferences drawn from the circumstances of the cultivation for the second count.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant guilty of possessing cannabis with intent to sell, and whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant not guilty of cultivating cannabis with intent to sell. Specifically, the court considered the application of the presumption under s 32(5) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence regarding the appellant's intent. The court also considered the grounds of appeal against sentence, which involved the sentencing remarks and considerations made by the trial judge.

The court granted permission to appeal against conviction and sentence but ultimately dismissed the appeals. Regarding the conviction for possession with intent to sell, the trial judge found that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not intend to sell at least 2 kilograms of cannabis, thereby satisfying the presumption under s 32(5) of the CSA. In relation to the cultivation charge, the trial judge found that while the evidence of the large-scale cultivation operation was relevant circumstantial evidence to the appellant's intention, the lack of preparation for transferring the juvenile plants to the grow room, or for their subsequent growth, raised doubt as to the appellant's intention to sell them or their products. The court found no error in the trial judge's reasoning on these matters. The appeals against conviction were therefore dismissed.