A direction on wilful blindness requires an evidentiary foundation showing the accused deliberately refrained from making inquiries; where the accused did not know the relevant statutory threshold existed, there is no 'risk' to which he could have closed his eyes, and a wilful blindness direction is inappropriate. The intention to cultivate a commercial quantity by weight may be proved by inference from proof that the accused knew there was a significant or real chance the plants weighed in excess of the threshold, without requiring knowledge of the threshold itself.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.