Click here to obtain a Word version of this document for adaptation.
[Insert the following section where indicated if it is alleged that the accused possessed a traffickable quantity of drugs, and it is not common ground that the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking.
Note that if the accused has been charged with an offence contrary to ss71, 71AA or 71AB, this section of the charge will need to modified to reflect the fact that the possession of a traffickable quantity provides sufficient evidence of the first two elements only.]
As I have told you, it is for you to determine whether the prosecution has proved the two elements of this offence beyond reasonable doubt. That is, you must be satisfied that NOA intentionally committed an act of trafficking, and that what s/he trafficked in was a drug of dependence.
According to the law, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused possessed no less than [insert traffickable quantity and name of relevant drug] is sufficient to enable you to find that these elements have been met. In other words, if you are satisfied that the accused possessed not less than [insert traffickable quantity and name of relevant drug], that will be sufficient, by itself, for you to convict the accused – unless there is any conflicting evidence.
That is not to say that you must convict the accused in such circumstances. Although you may use uncontradicted evidence that the accused possessed that quantity of drugs to convict them, you may only do so if that evidence – either by itself or together with other evidence – satisfies you that the accused is guilty of trafficking beyond reasonable doubt.
So you must look at all of the evidence, including the quantity of drugs possessed by NOA, and consider whether you are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that s/he intentionally [insert relevant act of trafficking] a prohibited drug.
Last updated: 2 March 2007