Click here to obtain a Word version of this document for adaptation.
[Insert this section where indicated if it is alleged that the accused was authorised or licensed to traffick in a drug of dependence.]
A person who is [authorised/licensed] to traffick in a drug of dependence will not be guilty of trafficking. In this case, the defence alleged that NOA was [authorised/licensed] to do so by virtue of [insert relevant evidence]. The prosecution disputed this, submitting that [insert relevant evidence].
Unlike the elements of the offence – which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt – this is a matter which the defence must prove on the balance of probabilities. That is, you must be satisfied by the defence that it is more likely than not that NOA was [authorised/licensed] to traffick in a drug of dependence. If the defence cannot prove this to you, and the prosecution has also proven both elements of the offence, then you should find the accused guilty of trafficking.
[Insert this section after the summary of the trafficking offence, if it is alleged that the accused was authorised or licensed to traffick in a drug of dependence.]
However, even if you decide that these elements have been proven, NOA will not be guilty if the defence has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that s/he was [authorised/licensed] by law to traffick in a drug of dependence.
 Provisions concerning authorisation and licensing are contained in Divisions 2 and 4 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. See also ss118 and 119 of that Act for evidentiary provisions that may be of assistance in relation to such matters.
Last updated: 2 March 2007