A jury direction that proof of belief in 'a significant or real chance' of cultivating a commercial quantity 'would satisfy the onus borne by the Crown' does not constitute a misdirection where the charge as a whole correctly identifies the issue as proof of intention, repeatedly directs the jury on the drawing of inferences, and makes clear that the drawing of the inference is a matter for the jury alone. However, trial judges should follow as nearly as possible the precise Nguyen formulation that such proof 'is capable of sustaining the inference'.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.