R v Trinh [2020] NSWDC 688

R v Trinh [2020] NSWDC 688

The evidence, principally circumstantial, does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly took part in the cultivation of 97 cannabis plants at the premises; Crown failed to prove the accused's relevant role regarding control or presence at the premises during cultivation, nor actual knowledge, thus a verdict of not guilty is returned.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judge Alone Trial, Verdict
Outcome
Not guilty
Legal Topics
['cultivation of Prohibited Plants' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'good Character Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'presumption of Innocence' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'right to Silence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judge Alone Trial, Verdict

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused knowingly took part in the cultivation of a prohibited plant (cannabis) not less than commercial quantity by enhanced indoor means' 'Whether the accused was an occupier, lessee, or in management of the premises during the relevant period' 'Whether circumstantial evidence establishes knowledge and participation']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, principally circumstantial, does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly took part in the cultivation of 97 cannabis plants at the premises; Crown failed to prove the accused's relevant role regarding control or presence at the premises during cultivation, nor actual knowledge, thus a verdict of not guilty is returned.

Court Disposition

Not guilty

Orders

  • ['The Accused is found not guilty']