[2024] SADC 63

Prosecution: In Person Counsel: MR T. MACURA - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) First Accused: JASON ANDREW RUDDICK In Person Counsel: MR P. RICE KC - Solicitor: CRAIG CALDICOTT Second Accused: ANDREW MARK GROSE In Person Counsel: MR A. GRAHAM - Solicitor: MANGAN EY & ASSOCIATES Hearing Date/s: 01/05/2024, 02/05/2024, 03/05/2024 File No/s: DCCRM-22-414 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. R v RUDDICK AND GROSE [2024] SADC 63 Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Fuller 28 May 2024 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - MANUFACTURE, PRODUCTION OR CULTIVATION CRIMINAL LAW - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Accused jointly charged with one count of cultivating cannabis for sale and one count of possession of prescribed equipment – on 29 June 2020, 30 cannabis plants found by police in three partitioned grow rooms in a unit (number 2) in a warehouse at Edinburgh North following a fire in an adjacent unit (number 1) leased by Grose – Ruddick signed a two year lease in 2014 for unit 2 but told police he had not been renting there for a couple of years – 10 of the cannabis plants were 1 -2 weeks old – 10 were 2-4 weeks old – 10 were 7-9 weeks old - Ruddick in custody or on home detention and not in the vicinity of the warehouse 9 June 2020 – 29 June 2020 – Grose called evidence establishing he was running a caravan and car repair business from his unit – forensic evidence (DNA and fingerprints) linking Ruddick to two light globe attachments, a light shade, 2 cigarette butts, one water bottle, two disposable coffee cups, two disposable gloves and a pair of plastic safety glasses found in unit 2 – two thumbprints of Grose on a light globe attachment found in unit 2 – fingerprints and DNA of other persons located on items in unit 2 – no direct evidence of Ruddick’s presence at or in unit 2 at any time – evidence that two unidentified men (not Grose or Ruddick) made cash rental payments in June 2020 for unit 2 – boat and trailer belonging to another male in unit 2 - circumstantial case against each accused – Ruddick alleged to have set up the grow house and tended to the plants – Grose alleged to have set up the grow house and paid for the electricity for unit 2 - joint enterprise not alleged. Held as to the accused Grose: Evidence incapable of proving that Grose paid electricity bills for unit 2 – evidence established Grose was running a legitimate caravan and car repair business from unit 1 – no evidence to link Grose to unit 2 other than thumbprints on light globe attachment found in unit 2 but not in grow rooms – prosecution could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt hypothesis consistent with innocence that Grose unaware of cannabis in unit 2 and not involved in setting up grow house. Verdicts as to the accused Grose: Not guilty of both counts. -- 1 of 57 -- Held as to the accused Ruddick: Evidence incapable of proving that Ruddick renting unit 2 at time of alleged offending - possibility open on the evidence that he had sublet unit 2 – no evidence that he was paying rent – rent paid by two different men in June 2020 – Ruddick not seen at or near unit 2 at any time by landlord – no evidence of Ruddick making any payments for expenses associated with rental of the property – Ruddick in custody or on home detention when cannabis plants in two of the grow rooms propagated or planted – prosecution could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt hypothesis that his DNA was deposited on the various items at a time prior to the construction of the grow rooms and the cultivation of the cannabis in grow room 3 and that he handled the light shade and light globe attachments in circumstances short of his knowing involvement in the cultivation of the cannabis plants. Verdicts as to the accused Ruddick: Not guilty of both counts and not guilty of the alternative charge of cultivating a controlled plant for sale Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4(8), 33B (2)(5), 33K, 33LA and 33R; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P (2) (a)(b); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7, referred to. R v Lukaj & Lukaj [2022] SASCA 135; R v G [2015] SASC 186; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; AK v The State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50; R v Weetra (2010) 108 SASR 232; Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; 26 CLR 265; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; The Queen v Frangos (1979) 21 SASR 331, applied. -- 2 of 57 -- R v RUDDICK AND GROSE [2024] SADC 63 The charges 1 The accused are jointly charged on Information with the following offences: First Count Statement of Offence Cultivating a Commercial Quantity of Controlled Plants for Sale. (Section 33B (2) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984). Particulars of Offence Jason Andrew Ruddick and Andrew Mark Grose between 1 April 2020 and the 29th day of June 2020 at Edinburgh North, cultivated a commercial quantity of controlled plants, namely 30 cannabis plants, knowing or being reckless as to the fact that they were controlled plants and intending to sell any of them or their products, or believing that another person intends to sell any of them or their products.1 Second Count Statement of Offence Possessing Prescribed Equipment. (Section 33LA of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984). Particulars of Offence Jason Andrew Ruddick and Andrew Mark Grose on the 29th day of June 2020 at Edinburgh North, possessed prescribed equipment, namely light shades, a cannabis bud stripper, and carbon filters, without reasonable excuse. The plea 2 The accused each pleaded not guilty to the charges. The accused elected for trial by Judge alone and I heard the trial without a jury. Elements of the offences charged Cultivating a Commercial Quantity of Controlled Plants for Sale 3 In order to prove the offence of cultivation of a commercial quantity of controlled plants for sale, the prosecution must prove four elements beyond reasonable doubt. These are: 1. The accused knowingly cultivated a controlled plant, namely cannabis; 2. The accused knew that the plants were controlled or, at least, that it was illegal to cultivate them; 1 An application by the prosecutor to amend the Information was made at the commencement of the trial. The particulars of the first count originally alleged that the offence was committed on 29 June 2020. The application was not opposed by defence counsel and was granted on 1 May 2024. -- 3 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 2 3. The accused cultivated a commercial quantity of a controlled plant. A “commercial quantity” of cannabis plants, as prescribed by regulation under the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (‘CSA’), is a quantity in excess of 20 plants; and 4. The accused intended to sell the controlled plants or the products of the controlled plants or believed that another person intended to sell one or more of the plants or their products. 4 Cultivating a plant is defined as:2 (a) plant a seed, seedling or cutting of the plant or transplant the plant; or (b) nurture, tend or grow the plant; or (c) harvest the plant (including pick any part of the plant or separate any resin or other substance from the plant); or (d) dry the harvested plant or part of the plant; or (e) take part in the process of cultivation of the plant. 5 A person takes part in the process of cultivation of a plant if the person directs, takes or participates in any step, or causes any step to be taken, in the process of cultivation.3 6 Steps in the process of cultivation of a plant include:4 (a) acquiring the plant or equipment, substances or materials; (b) storing the plant or equipment, substances or materials; (c) carrying, transporting, loading or unloading the plant or equipment, substances or materials; (d) guarding or concealing the plant or equipment, substances or materials; (e) providing or arranging finance (including finance for the acquisition of the plant or equipment, substances or materials); (f) providing or allowing the use of premises or jointly occupying premises. 7 A controlled plant is defined as:5 2 Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 4. 3 Ibid s 4(4). 4 Ibid s 4(7). For the purpose of this list, ‘materials includes seeds, seedlings and cuttings’: Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 4(8). 5 Ibid s 4. -- 4 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 3 … a growing cannabis plant or a cutting of a cannabis plant (provided that the cutting has been planted or otherwise placed in a growing medium) or any other plant declared by the regulations to be a controlled plant for the purposes of this Act. 8 Cannabis is prescribed as a controlled plant by Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014. 9 Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 specifies that the prescribed quantity of plants amounting to a commercial quantity is 20 plants. 10 Section 33B (5) CSA contains a reverse onus provision in relation to proof of the intention to sell. The section states:6 If, in any proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), (2) or (3), it is proved that the defendant cultivated a trafficable quantity of a controlled plant, it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the defendant had the relevant intention or belief concerning the sale of the plants or their products necessary to constitute the offence. 11 A trafficable quantity of cannabis is ten plants: S 33B (5) CSA. 12 It was agreed that the quantity cultivated in relation to count 1 is a commercial quantity. However, for reasons that will become clear, the age of the plants cultivated assumed some relevance with respect to the accused Ruddick in so far as it was alleged that he cultivated all of the plants by growing, tending and nurturing them during the particularised period. Evidence was led to establish that the accused Ruddick was in custody during part of the particularised period and was thereafter on home detention bail and had not been detected near the location of the grow house. 13 There was no attempt by the accused at trial to lead evidence to displace the statutory presumption of the intention to sell under s 33B (5) of the CSA. Possessing prescribed equipment 14 The prosecution must prove the following elements: • The accused possessed equipment. • That equipment was prescribed equipment. 15 It is a defence to the charge if there is a reasonable excuse for the possession of the prescribed equipment. The onus of proving a reasonable excuse for possession of the equipment is on the accused. 16 “Prescribed equipment” is defined in regulation 9 of the Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 (SA) to 6 Ibid s 33B(5). -- 5 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 4 include metal halide lights, high pressure sodium lights and mercury vapour lights of 400 watts or more, ballast boxes, devices (including control gear, lamp mounts and reflectors) designed to amplify light or heat, carbon filters designed to filter air within a room or from one area of a building to another or to outside, cannabis bud or head strippers, units designed to contain plants and rotate around a light source so that the plants grow hydroponically while being exposed to a consistent degree of light or heat or both. 17 While the prosecution did not allege a joint enterprise between the accused, it alleged that much of the evidence admissible against one accused was admissible against the other and vice-versa. 18 Where joint enterprise is not alleged, that does not mean that the evidence of the acts of an offender who is jointly charged is inadmissible against the co- offender. It depends. Whether the evidence is admissible depends upon the purpose for which the evidence is led and the fact in issue, or the fact going to a fact in issue, that the prosecution seeks to establish. 19 As was observed in R v Lukaj & Lukaj [2022] SASCA 135, the fact that the prosecution did not rely upon the doctrine of joint enterprise does not mean that evidence admissible against one accused was necessarily inadmissible against the other and vice versa. The admissibility of such evidence is contingent upon the rules of evidence being satisfied. However, if such evidence is admitted, and joint enterprise is not relied upon, care must be taken to ensure that criminal responsibility is not attributed to an accused by the mere fact of the evidence of acts done by a co-accused. An explanation as to how the acts of a co-accused can be used is required. Pre-trial applications Discreditable conduct evidence 20 The prosecution filed a Notice of Intention to Adduce Discreditable Conduct Evidence against each accused. There were two items of evidence said to be discreditable conduct evidence, one sought to be adduced against the accused Ruddick and the other against the accused Grose: 1. Cannabis material and a vacuum sealed bag found at Jason Andrew Ruddick’s residential address. 2. Cannabis material found in Andrew Mark Grose’s vehicle and a pot sox bag in his shed. 21 The Notice alleged that the permissible use of the evidence under s 34P (2)(b) of the Evidence Act 1929 (‘EA’) was to demonstrate that each accused was in the business of cultivating and trafficking cannabis. It was said that this fact makes it more likely that the accused was involved in the charged offences, that he was involved in the cultivation of the cannabis plants, knew of the nature of the -- 6 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 5 cannabis plants, that his intention was to sell some or all of the cannabis plants, and that any innocent explanation for the evidence can be rejected. 22 Prior to the trial commencing, the prosecution advised that it did not propose to rely upon the evidence itemised in the notice for a propensity purpose. Accordingly, any reliance upon s 34P (2)(b) was disavowed. 23 In his opening, the prosecutor said that the permissible use of the evidence of the cannabis and vacuum sealed bag was to demonstrate that the accused Ruddick had an interest in cannabis. Accordingly, this was circumstantial evidence relevant to the improbability of the accused Ruddick having no knowledge of or involvement in the cannabis being cultivated at the warehouse unit alleged to have been leased by him. The same submission was made with respect to the single cannabis leaf and pot sox bag found in the vehicle of the accused Grose. Pot sox bags of the same type were located in the unit in which the cannabis was being grown. 24 The accused Grose did not object to the admission of the evidence of the cannabis leaf and pot sox bag. The accused Ruddick objected to the admission of the cannabis material and vacuum sealed bag on the basis that the evidence was irrelevant. Defence counsel for Mr Ruddick, Mr Rice KC, did not seek a ruling on the admissibility of this evidence prior to trial and consented to the evidence being led and for the determination to be made during the course of my reasons for verdicts. 25 Section 34P EA provides: 34P—Evidence of discreditable conduct (1) In the trial of a charge of an offence, evidence tending to suggest that a defendant has engaged in discreditable conduct, whether or not constituting an offence, other than conduct constituting the offence (discreditable conduct evidence)— (a) cannot be used to suggest that the defendant is more likely to have committed the offence because he or she has engaged in discreditable conduct; and (b) is inadmissible for that purpose (impermissible use); and (c) subject to subsection (2), is inadmissible for any other purpose. (2) Discreditable conduct evidence may be admitted for a use (the permissible use) other than the impermissible use if, and only if— (a) the judge is satisfied that the probative value of the evidence admitted for a permissible use outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant; and (b) in the case of evidence admitted for a permissible use that relies on a particular propensity or disposition of the defendant as circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue—the evidence has strong probative value having regard to the particular issue or issues arising at trial. -- 7 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 6 (3) In the determination of the question in subsection (2)(a), the judge must have regard to whether the permissible use is, and can be kept, sufficiently separate and distinct from the impermissible use so as to remove any appreciable risk of the evidence being used for that purpose. (4) Subject to subsection (5), a party seeking to adduce evidence that relies on a particular propensity or disposition of the defendant as circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue under this section must give reasonable notice in writing to each other party in the proceedings in accordance with the rules of court. (5) The court may, if it thinks fit, dispense with the requirement in subsection (4). 26 S 34P requires me to determine whether the probative value of the evidence sought to be admitted for a permissible use outweighs any prejudicial effect and whether the permissible use is, and can be kept, sufficiently separate and distinct from the impermissible use so as to remove any appreciable risk of me using it for that purpose. 27 By a small margin, I am satisfied that the evidence of cannabis material found at the accused Ruddick’s premises has probative value that outweighs its prejudicial effect. I do not consider that the vacuum sealed bag itself constitutes an item of discreditable conduct evidence. As there is no suggestion that there had been a harvest of the cannabis in unit 2 or that Ruddick was involved in the trafficking of cannabis, the possession of the vacuum sealed bag is relevant only as an item of circumstantial evidence from which an inference might be drawn of a connection between that bag and any bags found in unit 2. The weight to be placed on that item of circumstantial evidence will depend upon whether I am satisfied that Ruddick was in possession of it and it was sufficiently similar to other bags found at the premises as to demonstrate a connection between him and items in unit 2. 28 I am satisfied that a permissible use of the evidence of small amounts of cannabis leaf is to demonstrate that Ruddick had an interest in cannabis. Of course, whether the evidence can be used in this way depends upon the inferences I am prepared to draw regarding this evidence, including whether I am satisfied that Ruddick was in possession of the cannabis. Even if so satisfied, I may determine that the probative value of this evidence as an item of circumstantial evidence in proof of the charged offences is slight or negligible. I direct myself that I cannot use this evidence to reason that Ruddick is more likely to have committed the offences charged because he had an interest in cannabis and had cannabis in his possession. 29 By a small margin, I am satisfied that the evidence of a single cannabis leaf found in the accused Grose’s vehicle has a probative value that outweighs its prejudicial effect. I am satisfied that a permissible use of the evidence of small amounts of cannabis leaf is to demonstrate that Ruddick had an interest in cannabis. Of course, whether the evidence can be used in this way depends upon the inferences I am prepared to draw regarding this evidence, including whether I am satisfied that Grose was in possession of the cannabis. Even if so satisfied, I -- 8 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 7 may determine that the probative value of this evidence as an item of circumstantial evidence in proof of the charged offences is slight or negligible. I direct myself that I cannot use this evidence to reason that Grose is more likely to have committed the offences charged because he had in interest in cannabis and had cannabis in his possession. 30 I do not consider that the evidence of a pot sox bag found in the shed is an item of discreditable conduct evidence. It is an item of circumstantial evidence from which an inference may be drawn that the accused Grose had a connection with the items in unit 2, given the location of other bags labelled ‘pot sox’ in unit 2. The weight to be placed on that item of circumstantial evidence will depend upon whether I am satisfied that Grose was in possession of it and if so, whether the possession of a bag with the same label as bags found in unit 2 demonstrates a connection between him and other items in unit 2. Particulars 31 Mr Rice KC requested the prosecutor to particularise the conduct of his client that was alleged to constitute the relevant act(s) of cultivation for the purposes of count 1. During his opening the prosecutor particularised the conduct of each accused as follows: As to each of the accused • They were involved in the setting up of the ‘grow house’ which included transporting, loading or unloading equipment. • They were involved in the ongoing cultivation of the plants. They attended the grow house to nurture, grow and harvest the plant from time to time. As to the accused Grose • He paid the electricity bills for the unit in which the cannabis was grown and therefore permitted premises to be used for cultivation. Issues in dispute 32 There was no dispute that between 1 April 2020 and 29 June 2020 a commercial quantity of cannabis plants was cultivated at Edinburgh North and that those responsible for the cultivation knew they were cannabis plants and intended to sell any of them or their products or believed that another person had that intention. 33 The issue in dispute was whether each of the accused was responsible for the acts of cultivation as particularised. 34 There was no dispute that the equipment particularised in count 2 was prescribed equipment as defined. The issue in dispute was whether that equipment was in the possession of each accused. -- 9 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 8 General directions 35 Each accused elected for trial by Judge sitting without a jury pursuant to the provisions of s 7 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA). As Lovell J observed in R v G,7 whilst the Act is silent as to any requirement regarding the contents of the reasons for verdicts, such requirements are established in a number of authorities: see R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68, Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; and AK v The State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438 per Heydon J. 36 The general directions were summarised by Lovell J in R v G. They are as follows: As the Judge of the facts and law, I must find the facts and draw the inferences from them as well as apply the law to the facts that I find. I must bring an open and unbiased mind to the evidence and view it clinically and dispassionately and not let emotion enter into the decision-making process. Both the prosecution and the accused are entitled to my verdict free of partiality or prejudice, favour or ill-will. I must then deliver my verdict according to the evidence. The prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused at all times. The accused does not have to prove that he did not commit the offence as charged. The standard of proof of the prosecution case is proof beyond reasonable doubt and the accused cannot be found guilty of the offence unless the evidence, which I accept, satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. In the findings I make in these reasons, I make those findings beyond reasonable doubt unless I specify otherwise. The accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the offence unless and until the evidence I accept satisfies me that each and every element of the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I must determine whether each of the witnesses called are truthful and reliable, that is, whether I can rely on the evidence that the witness gives me and so find the facts about which the witness has given evidence. I can accept part of a witness’s evidence and reject part of that evidence or accept or reject it all. If, however, the evidence which I accept fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt, of any or all of the elements of the offence charged, then the accused remains presumed innocent and I must find a verdict of not guilty. 37 Neither accused gave evidence. Neither accused was under any obligation to give evidence. No adverse inference may be drawn from the fact that each accused has exercised that right. In particular, the silence of the accused does not constitute any form of admission, may not be used to fill gaps (if any) in the prosecution case and may not be used as a makeweight in assessing whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.8 38 The accused Grose participated in a record of interview which was tendered in evidence. The accused’s record of interview, and any admissions I find 7 [2015] SASC 186. 8 Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50 at [51] and R v Weetra (2010) 108 SASR 232 at [67]. -- 10 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 9 contained therein, is evidence in the case that I can take into account in determining whether the charges against him have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 39 The accused Grose called witnesses as part of his case. He was under no obligation to do so. I will evaluate the evidence of those witnesses in the same way as I evaluate the evidence of the witnesses called by the prosecution. Circumstantial Evidence Direction 40 The prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove certain elements as regards each offence. 41 When a case against an accused person rests wholly or substantially upon circumstantial evidence, a verdict of guilty cannot be returned unless the circumstances exclude any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. If an inference or hypothesis consistent with innocence is open on the evidence, an accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt necessarily created by those circumstances.9 Before the accused can be convicted his guilt must be the only rational inference which can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence.10 42 I am to consider the evidence as a whole. A reasonable inference can be drawn from a combination of facts, none of which viewed alone would support that inference. I am not required to analyse each circumstance individually. I must consider the weight which is to be given to the united force of all the circumstances. One piece of evidence may resolve a doubt about another.11 43 It is not for the defence to establish that some inference other than guilt should reasonably be drawn from the evidence, or to prove particular facts which would tend to support such inference. If the evidence viewed as a whole is susceptible of a reasonable alternative explanation, then the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 44 My resolution of the case depends upon my assessment of all the evidence and that includes, of course, not just inferences in favour of the prosecution but inferences, explanations and submissions put forward on behalf of the accused. Directions on possession – count 2. 45 A person will not be in possession of something merely because he or she knows where it is located or has acquiesced or allowed another person to have possession of it.12 9 Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495. 10 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82. 11 R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618. 12 R v GNN [2000] SASC 447. -- 11 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 10 46 In The Queen v Frangos13 the defendant was charged with knowingly having possession of a prohibited drug. King CJ observed that, in general, if a person has physical custody or control of an item, together with the requisite knowledge that he or she has physical possession or control of that item, then the person is in possession of the item. Walters J, with whom Wells J agreed, said: Although what does constitute possession may vary according to each set of circumstances, and according to the context in which the word “possession” is used, it seems to me that in order to prove possession, it must ordinarily be shown that the possessor had the thing in his physical custody or control under circumstances which demonstrated that he had a conscious mental recognition of the thing’s presence, and that he was assenting to being in custody or control of it. Thus if a person were to take an article into his custody or control in circumstances showing that his state of mind was such that he had knowledge of its existence, and that he accepted it with the intention of exercising power of control over it to the exclusion of others, or with the presumed intention “to do so in case of need” (The Queen v Curlija), he may be said to have had possession of it. In the present case, the issue of possession was left to the jury, and on the facts, I think the animus possidendi¸ the requisite mental element of possession, could clearly be implied.14 Overview of the prosecution case 47 On 29 June 2020 members of the Metropolitan Fire Service (‘MFS’) and SA Police attended an industrial warehouse at 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North in response to a tasking about a fire in one of the four units inside the warehouse. Whilst extinguishing the fire in one unit, the MFS crew discovered damage to a timber stud wall separating the adjacent unit. Inside the adjacent unit a cannabis grow house was discovered, comprising three makeshift rooms each containing 10 cannabis plants growing hydroponically in pots with the assistance of light globes, shades and electrical transformers. 48 Police also found a cannabis bud stripper and five carbon filters. 49 The cannabis plants were at varying stages of growth with the smallest 10 plants estimated to be one or two weeks old, another 10 plants estimated to be two to four weeks old and the final ten plants between seven and nine weeks old with some visible flowering. 50 Police searched a Holden station wagon parked outside of the unit. It was registered to Mr Leigh Campbell who was present at the scene but left to obtain medical attention. In the glovebox, police located a high-powered light globe similar to the globes found in the grow house. 51 The accused Grose was also present outside the warehouse. He told police he leased the unit in which the fire took place and did not know any of the other tenants except his business partner, Leigh Campbell. The prosecution alleges this 13 (1979) 21 SASR 331. 14 (1979) 21 SASR 331. -- 12 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 11 was a lie, and that he did know the accused Ruddick. The lie was not alleged to be a lie out of a consciousness of guilt but a lie affecting his credibility. 52 The owner of the warehouse, Ms Connie Granozio, met with both accused together in 2014 before individual lease agreements were entered for the separate units. The unit closest to Bellchambers road (unit 1) was leased to the accused Grose and the adjacent unit (unit 2 in which the cannabis was located) was leased to the accused Ruddick. Ms Granozio had seen the accused Grose present at unit 2 on a number of occasions when she visited the premises, and they exchanged casual greetings. 53 On 30 June 2020 the police attended the accused Ruddick’s home address at 9 Village Terrace Blakeview. Police found a receipt book with invoices which referred to the accused Grose. In the garage, police found a vacuum sealed bag and an orange garbage bag, both of which contained small quantities of dried cannabis material. 54 Police also attended the home address of the accused Grose at 6 Michael Street Blakeview. A Holden Commodore parked outside the address and registered to the accused Grose was searched. Inside the boot police found a single cannabis leaf and in the glove box invoices addressed to Grose for rental payments to the unit he was leasing at 7 Bellchambers Road. In the garden shed police found a yellow 'pot sox’ plastic bag which was identical to the plastic bags located in the grow house. 55 On 25 August 2021, police arrested the accused Ruddick and on 26 August 2021, the police arrested the accused Grose. 56 Items including two cigarette butts, two disposable gloves, two takeaway coffee cups, two plastic drink bottles and a pair of safety glasses, seized from the grow house were submitted to the Forensic Science centre for DNA analysis. A DNA profile of the accused Ruddick was located on eight of the items. 57 Some of the hydroponic equipment was tested for fingerprints. Three of those items had fingerprint impressions identical to those of the accused Ruddick. One of the globe attachments had two fingerprint impressions identical to the left thumb of the accused Grose. The evidence 58 I turn now to summarise the evidence led at trial. Commander Christopher James Attick 59 Commander Attick was working for the Metropolitan Fire Service as a station officer on 29 June 2020. Together with other MFS officers he attended 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North in order to extinguish a fire in the unit of a -- 13 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 12 warehouse. The fire was in the unit closest to the street. An aerial photograph of the premises was tendered: Exhibit P1.15 60 When he arrived on scene, there were two persons present – Leigh Campbell and Andrew Groef (sic). Mr Campbell was trying to put the fire out with a garden hose. He was then taken by SA Ambulance to hospital for observation.16 They told him that they used the unit for a caravan repair business. The interior of the unit accorded with this description.17 61 Once the fire had been extinguished, he and other MFS members entered the unit. He saw a caravan which had been severely damaged by fire.18 Fire had penetrated an adjoining wall to the next unit and created a hole. The cause of the fire was determined to be an electrical fault in the battery charging system attached to the caravan.19 62 Commander Attick and other MFS members then entered the adjoining unit to check if there was anyone in it and to see if the fire had spread.20 Upon entering the unit, Commander Attick saw the unit had been separated into individual rooms with studded makeshift walls. In those rooms were cannabis plants. Once he saw the cannabis, he notified SAPOL.21 Cross-examination 63 There were 12 firefighters on scene.22 They used a disc cutter to gain access through the roller door to unit 1.23 It appeared to him that there was an area in the wall adjoining unit 1 and 2 that had been filled in but may once have allowed access between the units.24 64 There was a caravan parked parallel to the units.25 In unit 2, in addition to the cannabis plants, there was a speed boat and a trailer which had not been damaged by fire.26 Detective Brevet Sergeant Neil Christopher Tiller 65 On Monday 29 June 2020, Detective Tiller was tasked to attend 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North. He arrived around 1.18pm. There were other uniformed police officers and MFS personnel present.27 15 T 16-18. 16 T 21-22. 17 T 22-23. 18 T 19. 19 T 19-20. 20 T 20. 21 T 21. 22 T 24. 23 T 25. 24 T 26-27. 25 T 27. 26 T 30. 27 T 31-32. -- 14 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 13 66 A floor plan of unit 1 and 2 and thumbnail photographs taken from a walk- through video recording were tendered: Exhibit P2. The recording of the walk- through was also tendered: Exhibit P3. The silver Holden station wagon registration number S711BYY was registered to Leigh Campbell.28 The recording showed three water tanks and containers of nutrients. There were also carbon filters and an aeroponic propagator. On top of one of the water tanks were plastic bags labelled ‘Pot Sox’.29 67 Detective Tiller was exhibits officer until another police officer, Rabig, took over.30 A master exhibits table was created: Exhibit P4. Photographs of the exhibits seized were taken: Exhibit P5 and P6. 68 Detective Tiller went to Leigh Campbell’s home address on Thursday 2 July 2020. He was a person of interest. The premises was searched, and property recovered but Detective Tiller did not have a note of what that was.31 Cross-examination 69 Detective Tiller did not remove any items or move anything other than lifting the lid of the freezer and grabbing a bag in the freezer.32 70 Detective Tiller said there were two caravans outside of unit 1 when he attended on 29 June 2020.33 Brevet Sergeant Alexandra Alice Rabig 71 Brevet Sergeant Rabig attended 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North at 3.16pm on 29 June 2020. Other police officers were present and had been processing exhibits. She took over as exhibits officer from Detective Tiller and prepared an exhibit log: Exhibit P7.34 She also took a series of photographs: Exhibit P8. 72 Brevet Sergeant Rabig processed the 20 snip and save samples that were taken from the 30 cannabis plants. She transported the exhibits she processed to the location police station and booked them into the police property management system.35 Cross-examination – counsel for accused Ruddick 73 Brevet Sergeant Rabig said she counted each cannabis plant in each room. She was taken to page four of P8 which showed the small cannabis plants. She was asked to number them from one through to ten in order to identify each individual 28 T 37. 29 T 38-39. 30 T 40. 31 T 48. 32 T 49. 33 T 49. 34 T 51-53. 35 T 56-57. -- 15 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 14 plant.36 She insisted there were ten plants in the photograph and said she counted them and double checked them.37 74 Brevet Sergeant Rabig said that in addition to the light shades seen in photograph 17 of P8 which were found in the grow rooms, there were other light shades located in the main area.38 Cross-examination – counsel for accused Grose. 75 Brevet Sergeant Rabig said she was confident there were ten plants in photograph 4 of P8. She said she counted those plants more than once.39 Detective Brevet Sergeant Michael Christopher Randells 76 Detective Randells attended 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North at 1.10pm on 29 June 2020. Other police were already present. He conducted a registration check on the boat and trailer in the second unit. It was registered to Aaron Hutchings.40 77 On 30 June 2020, Detective Randells attended 9 Village Terrace, Blakeview, the home address of the accused Ruddick. He was home at the time. His house was searched and a notebook, a large clear plastic bag and a garbage bag with suspected cannabis remnants were located. The notebook was found in an office area in the house and the bags were found in a yellow recycling bin in the garage. 41 78 When he lifted the lid of the recycling bin he saw some loose material on a rag which he suspected was cannabis leaf, but it was not seized because as he picked up the rag it dropped into the bin.42 The vacuum sealed bag containing suspected cannabis leaf was found a little further down the bin, under some other items.43 He also located an orange garbage bag with suspected cannabis leaf in the bin.44 79 Detective Randells took photographs of the premises: Exhibit P9. 80 The bags were booked into the police property management system and decanted and given a separate identifying number.45 81 Photographs of the notebook were tendered: Exhibit P10. The notebook was also tendered: Exhibit P11. The notebook contained invoices. One invoice dated 14 October 2014 was made out to Leigh Campbell, and two others dated 16 and 36 T 57. 37 T 58. 38 T 58. 39 T 59-60. 40 T 62. 41 T 62-63. 42 T 65. 43 T 66. 44 T 67. 45 T 67. -- 16 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 15 17 October 2014 to the accused Grose.46 There were also invoices made out to Simon Farrelly and Bianca Anderson.47 82 The date range of the invoices in P11 was 20 September 2014 to 25 May 2015. The invoices referred to vehicles and tinting.48 83 Detective Randells attended 6 Michael Street, Blakeview on the same day. It was a five-minute drive from the house of the accused Ruddick.49 No one was home when he attended, but the accused Grose and his partner Bianca Anderson arrived shortly thereafter in a Toyota Kluger. The premises was then searched, and some items were seized.50 Cross-examination by counsel for accused Ruddick 84 Detective Randells said that the plastic vacuum-sealed bag may have had a zip lock top, but he was not sure and could not recall. The exhibits officer was Senior Constable Duncan.51 85 Detective Randells searched the garage between 2.15pm and 2.53pm. Other than introducing himself to the accused Ruddick he did not have any further interaction.52 Senior Constable James Duncan 86 On 29 June 2020 Senior Constable Duncan attended 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North. Other police and MFS officers were present. He spoke with the accused Grose, who identified himself as a tenant of one of the units. Senior Constable Duncan had a conversation with him which was audio-visually recorded: Exhibit P12.53 87 In the interview, the accused Grose said he rented the ‘first’ unit and said it was either number 4 or number 1. He used it to restore caravans and cars. He did this for a hobby. He paid rent by online bank transfer through the Commonwealth Bank. He was supposed to pay it monthly, but he was a little bit behind, but was not sure by how much. When asked if he had a rental agreement he said, ‘I’m not sure if the lease has run out or not, I think it may have but it could just be periodic, but yeah I’m not sure on the dates’. 88 The accused Grose said he had a rental agreement when he first started renting but he was not sure how long the lease was. Connie was the landlord, but he did not know her surname. He was asked if he knew any of the other tenants 46 T 68. 47 T 69. 48 T 70. 49 T 70. 50 T 71. 51 T 73. 52 T 74. 53 T 75-76. The transcript of the conversation in P12 was MFI P12A. -- 17 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 16 and he said, ‘I only know the landlord, Connie who is which she has one of the sheds as her storage there for that’. He said he did not know any of the other tenants and there was hardly anyone ever there and he hardly ever saw Connie. He said it was mostly just him and Leigh Campbell, who was his partner that he did things with. 89 The accused Grose said the three caravans parked down the driveway were caravans he was working on and two belonged to him. He said that he, Leigh and Connie had keys to the unit. He did not have access to any of the other units. He went into unit 2 about five years before because he was going to rent that one, but he ended up with unit 1 because it had an office. He said his DNA or fingerprints would not be anywhere in unit 2. 90 Senior Constable Duncan attended 9 Village Terrace, Blakeview at 2.15pm on 30 June 2020 to assist with a search of the premises. At 3.00pm he attended 6 Michael Street, Blakeview where he telephoned the accused Grose and asked him if he could return. Upon his return, Senior Constable Duncan searched a Holden Commodore registered to the accused Grose which was parked outside his home. Inside the boot of the vehicle, he found a single cannabis leaf and in the glove box invoices for rental payment for unit 1, 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North.54 91 The cannabis leaf was about 10 centimetres in diameter and was in the top right corner of the boot. The boot was otherwise empty. The leaf was seized and booked into the police property management system.55 92 Senior Constable Duncan located a pot sox bag in the rear shed of the property and took a photograph of it.56 93 The cannabis leaf was photographed: Exhibit P13. It was not tested by Forensic Science. A photograph of the pot sox bag in situ was taken: Exhibit P14.57 The bag was about 40cm high and 20 cm wide. He could not recall if there was anything in it and he left it where it was after taking a photograph of it.58 94 On 2 July 2020, Senior Constable Duncan attended 10 Michael Street Blakeview and spoke with Leigh Campbell. He took a DNA sample from Mr Campbell and booked it into the PPMS system. He took a DNA sample from the accused Ruddick and the accused Grose on 3 July 2020. Those samples were sent to Forensic Science for analysis.59 54 T 77-80. 55 T 80. 56 T 81. 57 T 82-83. 58 T 84. 59 T 84-85. -- 18 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 17 Cross-examination by counsel for the accused Ruddick 95 On 29 June 2020, Senior Constable Duncan went into unit 2 briefly. He went into the open plan area and then the hydroponic set up area.60 96 When he attended the accused Ruddick’s house on 30 June 2020, he was with five or six other officers and he initially had a conversation with the accused Ruddick in the kitchen/dining area. The accused Ruddick told him the following information: • Leigh Campbell was his brother-in-law. • He had not been renting at those premises for about two years. • He used to work there at an earlier time. • He said he had no idea why his name would have been mentioned as being potentially involved in the cannabis cultivation at 7 Bellchambers Road. • He was unsure who was now renting the unit but someone else was possibly paying the rent. • He used to work on caravans at the units with Leigh Campbell and would be involved in window tinting. He sometimes did that at the unit and sometimes remotely. • He said his wife worked in childcare. • He provided the following mobile phone number: 0447 423 449.61 Cross-examination by counsel for the accused Grose 97 Senior Constable Duncan did not make a note of where he located the cannabis leaf in the boot of the Holden Commodore or the pot sox bag. However, he was certain the bag was in the shed and he recalled the leaf being on the right side of the boot.62 98 The Holden Commodore registration S278AXM was a different vehicle from the Commodore that could be seen on P12 outside 7 Bellchambers Road.63 99 Senior Constable Duncan agreed that he interviewed the accused Ruddick without recording the conversation and this was sloppy police work. However, he denied being mistaken about the location of the cannabis leaf and pot sox bag.64 Maria Concetta Granozio 100 Ms Granozio was the co-owner with her father, Giuseppe Marino Snr, her husband Jon Granozio, brother Giuseppe Junior and his wife Anita Marino, of 60 T 85. 61 T 87-90, 92. 62 T 90. 63 T 90. 64 T 91-92. -- 19 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 18 premises at 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North. She was the owner of a lighting shop which occupied one of the four units at those premises. The other three units were leased out. The leases were arranged through Colliers.65 101 Ms Granozio said that when the units were ‘lodged with council’ their architect numbered them A, B, C and D but when they were leased out, they were leased out as units 1, 2, 3 and 4. She explained that the unit furthest from the road was A and closest to the road was D. An aerial photograph of 7 Bellchambers Road was tendered with units A to D marked by Ms Granozio: Exhibit P15.66 102 The unit furthest from the road, 7A, was leased by a business called Sinosteel and Ms Granozio’s lighting business, Instyle Lighting, occupied unit 7B.67 The warehouse was built in 2006. The units were leased out from 2008.68 103 In 2014, Ms Granozio met the prospective tenants for units 1 and 2 at a café in Elizabeth. Those tenants were the accused Grose and Ruddick.69 The meeting was arranged by Colliers. She was not involved in the process of finding the tenants.70 104 Ms Granozio said that the accused spoke about repairs to cars, motors and caravans and the intention of both accused was to take out a joint lease for two units. She said that intention did not change.71 Colliers took it from there after the meeting. She did not meet with them again but there may have been a few phone calls to discuss keys and for the accused to provide an address for the invoices to be posted by her bookkeeper.72 105 The lease agreements were drawn up by her lawyer, Nic Minicozzi. A disclosure statement relating to unit 2 under a cover letter of Mr Minicozzi dated 9 July 2014 was tendered: Exhibit P16. P16 revealed that there was an offer to lease unit 2 for a period of two years from 1 September 201473 with an option to renew for a further two years and a further year after that. P16 was signed by the co-owners of the business, including Ms Granozio and also by the accused Ruddick of 7 Village Terrace, Blakeview. The annual rent payable was $18,500. Invoices were sent monthly. Ms Granozio said the ‘rents’ of around $2000 a month were always paid on time.74 65 T 96. 66 T 97. The evidence of the lettering system for the units was the subject of an objection with counsel agreeing that I could rule on the admissibility of that evidence in the course of my reasons for verdict. 67 T 98. 68 T 98. 69 T 98. 70 T 99. 71 T 99-100. 72 T 100. 73 T 103-104. 74 T 103-104. -- 20 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 19 106 Following the signing of the disclosure agreement, a lease agreement was executed for unit 2. The lease agreement was prepared by Mr Minicozzi. She did not see the accused Ruddick sign the lease agreement.75 107 The disclosure statement for unit 1, under cover of a letter dated 9 July 2014 from Minicozzi Lawyers was tendered: Exhibit P17. The commencement date of the lease offered for unit 1 was 1 September 2014 for a period of two years, with an option to renew for a further two years and one year after that. P17 was signed by Ms Granozio and the co-owners and by the accused Grose of 6 Michael Street, Blakeview. The annual rent was $18,500. A lease agreement was executed soon after. Both accused took a unit each and moved in on 1 August 2014.76 108 Ms Granozio attended 7 Bellchambers Road twice a month between 2014 and 2020 to get stock and she would say hello to the accused Grose. He was the only one she ever saw there.77 She said: He would be tinkering outside with a caravan or an engine or a car and wave, like I said, ask if everything was ok on the premises, yes, everything was good, and I’d continue on to my warehouse and get my goods and leave.78 109 Ms Granozio said that the accused Grose was out the front of unit 7C as marked on P15.79 She said the roller door to 7C was always ‘half up, half down, it wasn’t all the way up and it wasn’t all the way down.’ She could see cars in there and caravans.80 110 Ms Granozio did not have a key to units 7C and 7D and never went in there. She said the roller door to 7D was always down when she visited.81 111 Ms Granozio inspected both units before the accused commenced leasing them. There was a wall separating each unit which could be opened up to create one full warehouse but at the time of leasing each unit to the accused it was closed.82 Prior to this, the units were leased by a company called the Bed Shed.83 112 Ms Granozio said that the accused Grose paid rent into the family business account via EFT every month.84 The tenants would be invoiced for council rates, water rates, revenue SA expenses and outgoings.85 113 Ms Granozio initially said that the accused Grose and Ruddick were never in arrears with their rental payments. She then said there were occasions when each 75 T 118-119. 76 T 120-121. 77 T 122, 123. 78 T 122, 18-21. 79 T 122. 80 T 123, 10-13. 81 T 124. 82 T 124. 83 T 125. 84 T 125. 85 T 125-126. -- 21 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 20 of them did not pay their rent when it was due and there would be a month delay before they caught up.86 114 Occasionally, Ms Granozio would ring the accused Grose and tell him his rent was due two weeks ago and he told her he would catch up. She never spoke to the accused Ruddick as ‘there was never any need to and I always really dealt with Mr Grose’. This was because payments for unit 2 were always on time.87 115 A BankSA account statement for the period 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020 for the partners Marino, Marino and Granozio was tendered: Exhibit P18.88 This had been marked by Ms Granozio denoting the attribution of rental and other payments to the accused Grose and Ruddick. 116 Ms Granozio said that the leases for units 1 and 2 continued uninterrupted from the middle of 2014 until the middle of 2020. The leases were renewed from time to time, but she could not recall whether fresh documents were prepared and executed. She said the rent did not change in that period. She did not give permission for anyone to grow cannabis in unit 2.89 Cross-examination by counsel for the accused Ruddick 117 Ms Granozio provided four statements to police relating to the rental arrangements for units 1 and 2. She did not refer to Colliers in any of those statements and never had signage on the front of the premises to indicate there were warehouses for lease.90 She said the advertising was done through Colliers and they would field inquiries from potential tenants and give her the names. She said it was difficult to lease out the units because they were right next to a waste recycling depot.91 118 A draft memorandum of lease for unit 2, 7 Bellchambers Road dated 30 May 2014 was identified by Ms Granozio and tendered: Exhibit D19. The primary lease period was for two years, with a right of renewal for two years and a further right of renewal of one year. After the five-year period had expired, Ms Granozio said ‘we just had a periodic agreement that they could stay’.92 119 A fresh lease agreement was not drawn up for either unit 1 or 2.93 120 Ms Granozio said that payments for unit 2 were made via EFT. If a cash deposit was made, she would identify the unit to which the payment was attributed by the invoice number.94 She was sure that the invoices were sent to the home 86 T 126-127. 87 T 127, 11-14. 88 T 130. 89 T 131-132. 90 T 132. 91 T 132-133. 92 T 137-138, 32. 93 T 138-139. 94 T 139. -- 22 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 21 addresses of the accused. Her bookkeeper handed her the invoice, and she wrote the name and the address on the envelope.95 121 There was a letterbox for mail to be sent to 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North which was out the front of the premises.96 122 Ms Granozio agreed that she told police that the reference number next to the accused Ruddick’s deposits was 50887. She agreed that she meant to indicate that the general number she used, as distinct from the invoice number, for the accused Ruddick’s deposits was 50887. She agreed that she did not know who was actually making the payments.97 123 Ms Granozio agreed that the formality of the lease expired in about roughly mid-2019 but there was a carryover arrangement thereafter. She accepted that this was not with the accused Ruddick because she did not talk to him. Her primary concern was having the rent paid and she just assumed he was paying the rent.98 Cross-examination by counsel for the accused Grose 124 Ms Granozio agreed that the two-year lease entered into by the accused Grose was never formally renewed. He was the only person named on the lease. She agreed that there was never a joint lease, and it was a deliberate decision to have separate leases.99 125 Ms Granozio took the accused Grose on a view of the units before he entered the lease. He signed the lease at her shop on Anzac Highway. He did not go to a café at Elizabeth.100 126 Ms Granozio agreed that because the events about which she was speaking occurred in 2014 her memory was not completely reliable. However, she insisted that the accused approached her together, or that the inquiry was made for both.101 She explained: Colliers contacted me and said, ‘We have got someone that fixes caravans, do you think they’d be a tenant? Would you like to meet with them? Yes.’ That’s how it went on.102 127 The accused Grose told her he was intending to use the unit to work on caravans and it would be used as his workshop.103 The accused Ruddick said he needed to rent a unit to be used for working on vehicles.104 95 T 141. 96 T 142. 97 T 142-143. 98 T 144. 99 T 145. 100 T 146. 101 T 146. 102 T 146, 30-33. 103 T 146. 104 T 147. -- 23 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 22 128 Ms Granozio said that the accused Grose always paid by electronic funds transfer for unit 1 and the cash deposits were not from him but were for or from the accused Ruddick for the other unit. She was not sure if the payments for unit 2 were always in cash.105 129 Ms Granozio identified a statement of outstanding rent for the accused Grose with her handwriting on it dated 22 May 2019: Exhibit D20. She had written ‘Andy you need to catch up’.106 She agreed that as at 22 May 2019 the accused Grose was approximately $19,000 in arrears. That would have been four or five months’ rent and outgoings including council rates.107 130 A further statement of outstanding rent for the accused Grose dated 10 June 2020 was tendered: Exhibit D21. Ms Granozio agreed that as of 10 June 2020, the accused Grose owed approximately $21,700. She had written on D21 ‘Andy please make full payment ASAP’.108 131 Another statement of outstanding rent for the accused Grose dated 12 December 2018: Exhibit D22. Ms Granozio agreed that as of 12 December 2018 the accused was over $19,000 in arrears.109 132 An invoice for rent for unit 1 dated 4 March 2018 to which a yellow post it note was attached was tendered: Exhibit D23. Ms Granozio said it was her writing on the post it note.110 133 An invoice for rent for unit 1 dated 1 January 2019 was tendered: Exhibit D24. Ms Granozio agreed that from the date the lease was entered until the date of the termination of the lease following the fire the accused Grose was being invoiced for unit 1 and unit 1 only. His payments were always made by EFT and at the time of the fire he was approximately $22,000 behind in his payments. On Thursday 17 September 2021 she received a bank transfer from the accused Grose for $10,000. She had provided a statement to police on 9 October 2020 in which she said the accused Grose still owed approximately $10,000. It was after this that the remaining amount was paid.111 134 Ms Granozio said that as far back as she could remember, the payments for rent for unit 2 were paid by cash deposited into an ATM.112 She said that in 2014 she thought more payments were made via EFT. The payments for unit 2 were up to date at the time of the fire. She agreed that in her statement dated 9 October 2020, she told police that the payments for unit 2 had been paid by cash deposit 105 T 147-148. 106 T 148, 32-33. 107 T 148-149. 108 T 150-151. 109 T 151. 110 T 152-153. 111 T 153-154. 112 T 154. -- 24 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 23 every fortnight in the sum of $2000 like clockwork. She said that was her memory in the lead up to the fire rather than in 2014.113 135 Ms Granozio agreed that the accused Grose occupied the majority of the common driveway and there would often be broken down cars, caravans and a rubbish trailer in the driveway.114 Ms Granozio would sometimes have a shipping container left out the front of unit 3 and she would ask the accused Grose to leave a gate open so the container could be delivered. There was also a person called the ‘chicken man’ who left a truck out the front of unit 3. He paid $200 a month to leave his truck there.115 136 Ms Granozio agreed that when the accused Grose had caravans around, these often occupied the communal driveway right up to and in front of unit 3. She often saw him tinkering on the caravans for the entire length of the units.116 On the occasions that she saw the roller door up, she saw caravans, cars, motors and other bits and pieces. She would have to tell him to clean up the rubbish he left out the front of the units in the common driveway.117 137 Ms Granozio described the accused Grose as an obliging friendly character and quite a nice person. She agreed she found it frustrating when he was behind in rent, especially during the pandemic.118 138 Ms Granozio was shown a photograph of 7 Bellchambers Road and agreed that this was a photograph taken on the day of the fire: Exhibit D25. There was smoke damage above the roller door for unit 1. Ms Granozio agreed that she could have been mistaken in her evidence when she said that it was the roller door to unit 2 that was partly open and the roller door to unit 1 was shut.119 139 Ms Granozio was shown the floor plan on page 59 of P19. She agreed that the floor plan was drawn up by Symonds Ryan and Cornish surveyors. She said that ‘office warehouse 1’ was closest to Bellchambers Road.120 140 Ms Granozio agreed that the units had been described with different numbers and letters by different people.121 After the fire, Ms Granozio engaged a builder to perform repairs and for outdoor lighting to be installed. It was then that she was told that the units were actually 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D with 7D being closest to the road. She relied upon what she was told when she marked P15. When she looked 113 T 155. 114 T 155-156. 115 T 156. 116 T 156. 117 T 157. 118 T 157. 119 T 158-159. 120 T 159. 121 T 160. -- 25 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 24 at the original plans when they were built, they were marked by the architect in this way.122 Detective Brevet Sergeant Aaron Nathan O’Malley 141 Detective O’Malley is a criminal investigator in the Drug and Organised Crime Task Force. Defence counsel accepted that Detective O’Malley could give expert evidence with respect to the pricing, packaging and distribution of cannabis throughout Australia.123 142 Detective O’Malley gave evidence about cannabis and its chemical composition and how it is grown, harvested and consumed. He said hydroponic cannabis cultivation was more common than outdoor cultivation. The typical growth cycle was faster, usually in the order of twelve to fourteen weeks. In a hydroponic cultivation it is common to have plants at varying stages of growth. He described the forms of hydroponic equipment, including high powered light globes, light shades, ballast boxes, carbon filters, bud strippers and transformers.124 143 Detective O’Malley said that the main difference between cannabis cultivated hydroponically in commercial premises is that there are no individual rooms as seen in residential premises. Accordingly, there is often partitioning of the large space to separate cannabis plants and control the heat, light and water flow.125 144 Detective O’Malley said it was common to find disposable and gardening gloves, but these were not essential.126 145 Once harvested, cannabis is packaged for sale in a variety of ways. For street level dealings, press sealed bags holding 2-3 grams of cannabis are used. Sandwich press sealed bags are used for ounce amounts and plastic shopping bags or cryovac or vacuum sealed bags for pound amounts. The advantage of vacuum sealing is to reduce the size and chance of odour.127 146 The price of cannabis between July and September 2020 was as follows: • 2-3 grams = $25. • An ounce/28 grams = $250. • A pound/450 grams = $2400.128 147 Detective O’Malley said that the advantage of syndication for cannabis cultivation is the combination of resources to increase the amount of drugs for sale 122 T 160-162. 123 T 166-167. 124 T 167-172. 125 T 172. 126 T 172. 127 T 173. 128 T 174. -- 26 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 25 and therefore the profit. Specific roles can be delegated, and resources coordinated. Generally, the establishment of a grow house is a team effort with different individuals performing different roles.129 148 Indicia of involvement in commercial cannabis cultivation include sophisticated set-ups, multiple premises, large quantities of cash moving through bank accounts, multiple mobile phones or encrypted devices, money counters, large amounts of cash, vacuum or heat-sealed bags.130 149 Detective O’Malley identified the object in photograph 37 of P19 as a bud stripper. He said the object in P13 looked like a cannabis leaf.131 Sharon Faye Wilczek 150 Ms Wilczek is a forensic scientist employed at Forensic Science SA. Defence counsel accepted she had expertise in the identification of cannabis, the age of plants and yield estimates. She gave evidence of the life cycle of a cannabis plant. Generally speaking, with hydroponic cultivation there is a 13-week cycle; five weeks of growth and eight weeks of flowering. Half of cannabis plants grown from seed will be male and half will be female. Cannabis plants generally grow up to 3 metres tall but when grown hydroponically they are usually 1 to 1.5 metres tall.132 151 Cannabis plants are highly variable in their yield, but the data suggests that on average a plant grown to 1-1.5 metres tall will yield between 600 – 900 grams of dry usable material which is leaf and head material.133 152 The certificate of analysis confirmed that the 20 plant samples taken from unit 2 were cannabis plants. The samples of dried plant material were confirmed to be not more than 0.6 grams and 1.3 grams of 100% female flowering cannabis plant material.134 153 Ms Wilczek said that the plants in photograph 78 of P6 were one to two weeks old. They were too small to estimate a yield.135 The plants in photograph 83 of P6 were approximately two to four weeks old and were between 1 and 1.5 metres tall.136 The estimated yield of those plants was between 200 and 300 grams of dry usable leaf material. The yield estimate was based on an assumption the plants were harvested at the age they were in the photographs.137 154 The plants in photographs 3 and 4 of P5 were between 1 and 1.5 metres tall, seven to nine weeks old and the estimated yield was 600-800 grams of dry useable 129 T 174-176. 130 T 177. 131 T 180. 132 T 182-183. 133 T 183-184. 134 T 184-185. 135 T 185. 136 T 186. 137 T 186-187. -- 27 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 26 material consisting of head and leaf. Those plants had a few more weeks of growth left.138 155 Ms Wilczek said that there was an aeroponic propagator shown in still photographs taken from unit 2. This is a technique of propagating clones. The propagator is a box that has an electronic fan on it and water in the seat of the box where the clones are put in neoprene discs. A lid encloses the clones and water mists over the stem encouraging faster root development. Clones usually sit in the propagator for around seven days.139 Cross-examination by counsel for the accused Ruddick 156 Ms Wilczek could not tell from the photographs whether the aeroponic propagator was used.140 She agreed that an aeroponic propagator can be seen in photograph 37 of P5, but this was not the propagator she saw in the still photograph.141 157 Ms Wilczek agreed that estimating the ages of cannabis plants was an inexact science.142 She agreed that in relation to the age ranges about which she gave evidence the plants could be at either end of that range. There were 8 plants depicted in photograph 78 of P6.143 Patricia Ann King 158 Ms King is a forensic scientist at the Forensic Science Centre and works in the area of DNA comparison analysis. Her expertise in this area was accepted by defence counsel. Ms King gave evidence about DNA, its source and its uniqueness.144 159 DNA can be deposited onto a surface by direct, secondary or tertiary transfer. When comparing a reference sample to a known sample, it is not possible to determine whether the reference sample was direct or secondary transfer. Whether DNA is left on a surface depends on whether a person is wearing gloves, has washed their hands, if the area has a smooth surface or is handled only for a short period of time. There may be occasions when DNA is not left on an item or is removed from an item by, for example, UV light or rain. Some people shed more DNA than others.145 160 DNA can take a long time to degrade, depending on the conditions.146 138 T 187. 139 T 188. 140 T 189. 141 T 189. 142 T 189. 143 T 189-191. 144 T 192. 145 T 193-194. 146 T 195. -- 28 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 27 161 DNA analysis involves a statistical process and a statistical weighting because there are no absolutes in science. The likelihood ratio involves two competing hypotheses. The first is the prosecution hypothesis where that person is a contributor to the DNA profile. The second is the defence hypothesis where the person is not a contributor to the DNA profile. This is expressed as a statistical weighting with a number running from zero to billions and verbal equivalents ranging from slight to very strong and excluded or neutral.147 162 The Forensic Science Centre received known reference samples from Jason Ruddick, Andrew Grose, Leigh Campbell, Aaron Hutchings and Simon Farrelly.148 The results of the comparison of those known samples with DNA retrieved from items seized by police were contained in two reports dated 17 December 2021 and 27 June 2023: Exhibit P26. In summary, the results were as follows: • Disposable glove: Inner surface. Three contributors. The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was more than 100 billion. The hypothesis in favour of the others was that they were not contributors although the statistical weightings varied. • Cigarette butt: Two contributors. The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was more than 100 billion. The hypothesis in favour of the others was that they were not contributors although the statistical weightings varied. • Disposable cup with plastic lid: Outer mouth/opening of lid. Partial single source DNA profile: The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused was a contributor was 900 million. Campbell, Grose and Farrelly were excluded. The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that Hutchings was not a contributor was more than 100 billion. • Disposable cup with plastic lid: Outer mouth/opening. Single source DNA profile. The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was more than 100 billion. The hypothesis in favour of the others was that they were not contributors although the statistical weightings varied. Outer body of cup: partial single source DNA profile. The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was 8. The hypothesis in favour of the others was that they were not contributors although the statistical weightings varied. • Cigarette butt: Partial single source DNA profile. The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was more than 100 billion. The others were excluded. • Plastic Coles spring water bottle: 147 T 197-198. 148 T 198. -- 29 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 28 Outer mouth/opening. Mixed DNA profile – two contributors. The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was more than 100 billion. The hypothesis in favour of Campbell, Grose and Farrelly was that they were not contributors, but the statistical weighting varied. The competing hypotheses with respect to Hutchings were equally supported. Outer body. Mixed DNA profile three contributors: The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was 1500. The hypothesis in favour of the others was that they were not contributors although the statistical weightings varied. • Plastic safety glasses: Swab inner surface. Mixed DNA profile, three contributors: The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was 410. The hypothesis in favour of the others was that they were not contributors although the statistical weightings varied. • Plastic Coles spring water bottle: Swab-outer mouth/opening. Single source DNA profile: Originated from an unidentified male. Swab – outer body. Partial mixed DNA profile – two contributors: The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was not a contributor was 8. The hypothesis in favour of the others was that they were not contributors although the statistical weightings varied. • Disposable glove: Inner surface. Mixed DNA profile, four contributors: The statistical weighting in favour of the hypothesis that the accused Ruddick was a contributor was more than 100 billion. The hypothesis in favour of the others was that they were not contributors although the statistical weightings varied. Cross-examination by counsel for the accused Ruddick 163 Ms King said that when the gloves arrived at Forensic Science Centre, they determine what the inner surface of the glove is and that is the surface swabbed for DNA. This may require the turning of the glove inside out from the condition in which it was received.149 The first glove was described as stained cream disposable glove received inside out and the second as a cream disposable glove received inside out. She could not say if the gloves were completely inverted.150 164 In determining what is the inner surface of the gloves, it was assumed that the wearer wore them the correct way.151 165 There is no way of determining whether a DNA sample was via direct, secondary or tertiary transfer. DNA testing can be done fairly successfully years after the DNA was deposited.152 149 T 211. 150 T 212. 151 T 213. 152 T 215. -- 30 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 29 Vanessa Ha 166 Ms Ha is a fingerprint investigator at the Fingerprint Bureau of SAPOL. There was no challenge to her expertise in fingerprint identification. Friction ridge skin is the type of skin that covers fingers or feet, toes and hands and has the appearance of corrugated iron.153 167 Ridges and corrugations are unique to individuals. If two prints are identical that means they come from the same finger or palm or foot. A latent fingerprint is one that is invisible but is rendered visible through fingerprint powder.154 168 It will not always be possible to compare a print left on a surface to a known fingerprint impression because of factors such as the quality of the surface, how long someone had contact with that surface, whether it was smudged and environmental factors.155 169 Following the formation of an opinion of identification of a fingerprint, two other fingerprint experts must agree in order for the result to be verified. This is a blind verification.156 170 A booklet of 24 photographs of exhibits, some of which had barcode labels next to fingerprint impressions was tendered: Exhibit P27. 171 In photo 7 of P27, impressions on a light shade were compared with fingerprint cards from the accused Ruddick, the accused Grose and Simon Farrelly. One of the impressions was identical to the right middle finger of Simon Farrelly. The remaining impressions were not suitable for identification.157 172 In photograph 10, the impressions on the light shade were identical to the left thumb of the accused Ruddick. 173 In photograph 14, the impressions on a light shade were identical to the left middle finger and left ring finger of Simon Farrelly. The others were unsuitable for comparison. 174 In photograph 16, the impressions were not identified as the person who left them was unknown.158 175 In photograph 18 on the back of a light globe attachment, one of the impressions was identical to the left middle finger of the accused Ruddick. Another 153 T 218. 154 T 219. 155 T 219-220. 156 T 220. 157 T 222. 158 T 223. -- 31 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 30 impression was not identified but the accused Ruddick was excluded, and the remaining were not suitable for identification.159 176 In photograph 20 there were further impressions on a light globe attachment one was not identified, and the remaining were not suitable. 177 In photograph 21, one of the impressions on a light globe attachment was identical to the left thumb of the accused Ruddick.160 Several others were either not identified or not suitable. It is sometimes difficult to identify how many fingerprints are on an item.161 178 In photograph 24 on the back of a light globe attachment two impressions were identical to the left thumb of the accused Grose and the remaining impressions were either not identified or not suitable for identification.162 179 Fingerprints can be planted by using lifting tape or sticky tape to lift an impression left by a person and then plant that impression on another surface. However typically there would be sticky marks around the fingerprint as well.163 Cross-examination by counsel for the accused Ruddick 180 Ms Ha was shown the first two photographs in P27. She could not say how many individual items there were in the package on the pallet. The items were wrapped in plastic, and this may or may not obscure the fingerprint if it touched the plastic. Fingerprints are easily obliterated. Fingerprints cannot be aged. The prints on any of the items seized by police could have been there for years.164 Senior Constable Matthew Brian Allen 181 Senior Constable Allen took over as investigating officer from Senior Constable Duncan. On 25 August 2021 he arrested the accused Grose at Elizabeth Police Station and obtained a DNA sample from him.165 He was fingerprinted by cell staff.166 182 On 26 August 2021 he arrested the accused Ruddick at Elizabeth Police Station. On 29 October 2021 he obtained a DNA sample from Simon Farrelly. Senior Constable Allen identified photographs of a vacuum sealed bag and an orange garbage bag from which he decanted loose cannabis material: Exhibit P28.167 159 T 224. 160 T 224. 161 T 225. 162 T 225. 163 T 226. 164 T 226-227. 165 T 229-230. 166 T 235. 167 T 230-231. -- 32 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 31 183 As part of the investigation, he obtained electricity invoices from Origin Energy addressed to the accused Grose at 6 Michael Street, Blakeview for a period between 27 October 2018 and 29 June 2020: Exhibit P29. Those invoices referred to 7C Bellchambers Road and recorded a daily usage of zero. The last meter read was 29 June 2020.168 Cross-examination by counsel for the accused Ruddick 184 Senior Constable Allen was aware that footage was obtained of persons attending a bank to make payments into Ms Granozio’s account in June 2020. Neither of those men were the accused Ruddick.169 Further evidence led in the prosecution case 185 Four antecedent reports were tendered: • The antecedent report of the accused Grose dated 12 February 2024: Exhibit P30. • The antecedent report of Simon Leigh Farrelly dated 10 July 2023: Exhibit P31. • The antecedent report of Aaron Scott Hutchins dated 10 July 2023: Exhibit P32. • The antecedent report of Leigh Michael Campbell dated 10 July 2023: Exhibit P33. 186 Two still shots of images from a video recording of CCTV footage on 18 June 2020 and 23 June 2020 were tendered: Exhibit P35. Agreed facts 187 The following facts were agreed: Exhibit P34. 1. As at 30 June 2020, Jason Ruddick resided at 9 Village Terrace, Blakeview. 2. As at 30 June 2020, Andrew Grose resided at 6 Michael Street, Blakeview. 3. Between 22 January and 21 April 2020 the Holden Station Wagon with registration S711BYY was registered to Leigh Campbell at 10 Michael Street Blakeview. 4. As at 29 June 2020 the boat trailer with registration YAO761 was registered to Aaron Hutchings at 32 Carney Close, Salisbury Plains. 5. As at 30 June 2020 the black Holden sedan with registration S278AXM was registered to Andrew Grose at 6 Michael Street Blakeview. Jason Ruddick’s movements 1. On 9 June 2020 Jason Andrew Ruddick was arrested in an unrelated matter. 2. Between 9 June 2020 and 16 June 2020 Jason Andrew Ruddick remained in custody in the unrelated matter above. 168 T 235. 169 T 236. -- 33 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 32 3. Between 16 June 2020 and 14 August 2020 Jason Ruddick was subject to home detention bail with electronic monitoring by the Department for Correctional Services in the same unrelated matter. 4. During that time period Jason Ruddick did not attend within 200 metres of 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North or 6 Michael Street Blakeview. Bank SA CCTV 1. The two males depicted on CCTV on 18 June 2020 and 23 June 2020 at the Munno Para Bank SA branch making deposits into Ms Granozio’s bank account are neither Andrew Mark Grose nor Jason Andrew Ruddick. 2. The two images are still shots from the CCTV recording referred to above (P35). Fingerprints 1. On 6 July 2020 Crime Scene Investigator Van Der Wielen forensically examined hydroponic equipment that was located by police at unit 2, 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North. 2. Numerous fingerprints were located on light shades and light globe attachments which were submitted to the Fingerprints Bureau of South Australia Police. 3. The fingerprints were photographed and placed into photo booklet SVDW1. The defence case 188 The accused Ruddick did not call or give evidence. 189 The accused Grose did not give evidence but called three witnesses: Michael Phillip Grose, David Philip Radford and Brett Nigel John Gale. Michael Phillip Grose 190 Michael Grose is the brother of the accused Grose. At the time he gave evidence he was 43 years old, and his occupation was civil designer. He said that after school, the accused Grose completed an apprenticeship as a cabinet maker. After that he worked for himself repairing caravans.170 191 Prior to the accused Grose renting a unit at Edinburgh North, he had business premises in Smithfield. Michael Grose visited him at both places.171 The accused Grose started renting premises at Edinburgh North in 2014 and Michael Grose would attend there to work on his own car which was stored there. Their father’s car was also there, and they worked on that. He went to the premises at Edinburgh North on and off for 9 years.172 192 Michael Grose examined his new phone which told him that in the last four years he had visited those premises approximately 25 times. He went there to work 170 T 249. 171 T 249. 172 T 250. -- 34 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 33 on his car and their father’s car which they were restoring. A photograph of one of the accused’s old cars that he was restoring was tendered. It was dated 15 November 2014: Exhibit D36.173 193 A photograph of a spray booth in the back of a trailer was tendered. It was in the same location as the car in D36. This photograph was taken on 16 December 2019: Exhibit D37.174 194 A photograph of a Mazda RX7 belonging to Michael Grose inside the spray booth was tendered. The photograph was taken on 30 March 2020: Exhibit D38. 195 A photograph of the Mazda RX7 with the accused Grose kneeling next to it was tendered: Exhibit D39. The photograph was taken on 18 April 2020 and showed the door to the spray booth and a partially constructed caravan behind the RX7. The spray booth was 4 metres wide and 6 metres long. There was also a car hoist in the photograph and the wall between his brother’s unit and the adjoining unit was visible.175 196 A ‘selfie’ photograph of Michael Grose with the Mazda RX7 in his brother’s unit taken on 8 May 2020 was also tendered: Exhibit D40. A further photograph of a WB one tonner 1980 Ute inside his brother’s unit was also tendered. It was taken on 8 May 2020: Exhibit D41. Mr Grose said that the appearance of the interior of the unit in that photograph was consistent with how it would generally appear.176 197 A photograph taken on 2 June 2020 showing a caravan, a partially constructed 1968 XT Falcon and the wall between his brother’s unit and the adjoining unit was tendered: Exhibit D42. The 1968 XT Falcon belonged to their father and he, his brother and their nephew were restoring it for him for his birthday. His father’s birthday was on 19 June 2020, and they gave the restored car to him on that day.177 Another photograph of the XT Falcon inside the spray booth was tendered: Exhibit D43. It was taken on 12 June 2020.178 198 Mr Grose said that he had only restored his car and assisted with his father’s car. He said his brother had expertise in the restoration of cars.179 199 Mr Grose never saw his brother in any of the other units, and never saw him in unit 2. There was no access between units 1 and 2 and he never saw anyone at 173 T 251-252. 174 T 253. 175 T 254. 176 T 255-256. 177 T 256-257. 178 T 258. 179 T 257. -- 35 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 34 unit 2. The office area for his brother’s unit was at the front of the building, closest to the road. The roller door to the unit was sometimes shut and sometimes open.180 200 In 2020, Mr Grose was working full time, but from March 2020 he was working from home. Between March and June 2020, he would attend his brother’s unit after 8pm on a weekday and at random times on the weekend. There were occasions when he would pop in during the house of 9am to 5pm.181He did not have access to the premises if his brother was not there. However, his brother did leave a key for him.182 David Philip Radford 201 Mr Radford was 58 years of age when he gave evidence, and he worked in high velocity air conditioning. He had known the accused Grose for ten years or more. Bianca Anderson, who was the former partner of the accused Grose, was a family friend of his family. He first met the accused Grose at Ms Anderson’s 18th or 21st birthday party.183 202 In 2020, Mr Radford knew that the accused Grose worked repairing and building caravans. He was repairing Mr Radford’s caravan. He had bought it as a damaged caravan and the accused was fixing it up. That caravan burnt down in a fire in June 2020.184 It had been at the accused’s unit for about six months. He was rebuilding it.185 203 Mr Radford went into the accused’s unit in Edinburgh North. His was the first one, closest to the road. He had an office at the front which they never went in. His roller door was always open, so he just went into the workshop. Every time Mr Radford went there, he went through the roller door. He would call in to see how the caravan rebuild was going every couple of weeks or every month. He would sometimes contact the accused Grose before attending, but there were times when he would just call in on the way home from work. He lived in Craigmore about ten minutes away. In the six-month period during which his caravan was at the unit, he called in a dozen times.186 How long he stayed would vary, sometimes it was just a quick chat otherwise he would stay for half an hour.187 204 He never saw anyone in the adjoining unit and never saw the accused Grose have anything to do with it. Leigh Campbell was another person who would frequently be at unit 1. Leigh Campbell worked there and when he attended, he 180 T 259. 181 T 259. 182 T 260. 183 T 261. 184 T 262. 185 T 262. 186 T 262-264. 187 T 264. -- 36 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 35 saw Mr Campbell working, repairing and doing stuff around the place, like the accused Grose.188 205 Every now and then he saw a man who pulled his truck up in the far unit but otherwise it was very quiet. It was fairly messy inside the accused’s workshop with lots of gear. He had caravans, a spray booth, cutting benches, welders, shelving with tools on it, compressors; he had everything he needed to repair caravans.189 Brett Nigel Gale 206 Mr Gale was a sales representative for a composite material company in Adelaide. He was 38 years of age when he gave evidence. In 2020 he worked nightshift at the produce market at Pooraka. He has known the accused Grose for about fifteen years. He came to know him when he moved in next door to Mr Gale in Munno Para West. They became friends and had a common interest in anything to do with cars.190 207 In 2020 he was aware that the accused Grose had an industrial unit at Bellchambers Road Edinburgh North. He went there to see the accused. He would do that in the morning on his way home from work.191 He finished work between 9am and 11am. In 2020 he was living at either Munno Para or Angle Vale. Both addresses were about five minutes from the unit.192 208 The front part of the unit had glass windows around it and was an office. Inside it had a mezzanine floor and an office space. On top of the mezzanine floor there were parts of the caravan and inside the actual warehouse itself there was a spray booth, caravans, tools, saws and benches. When he went to the unit, he would usually enter via the roller door which was sometimes open and sometimes shut. He would attend unannounced.193 209 Between January 2020 and July 2020, he visited about once a week. How long he spent there would vary depending on the accused’s workload. The other person who was frequently there was Leigh Campbell. He would often be on the phone to customers or doing work around the place. Mr Gale never saw the accused go into the adjoining unit or have anything to do with it. Mr Gale never saw anyone at unit 2. Mr Gale knew the accused Ruddick because their sons played at the same soccer club. He never saw the accused Ruddick at the units.194 188 T 265. 189 T 265. 190 T 266. 191 T 266. 192 T 267. 193 T 267. 194 T 268. -- 37 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 36 Cross-examination by the prosecutor 210 There were times when he attended, and the accused Grose was not present. On those occasions he turned around and went home.195 Closing addresses Prosecution 211 Mr Macura commenced his submissions by contending that the forensic evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the accused Ruddick’s involvement in setting up the grow house and tending to the plants until his remand in custody and time on home detention bail. He said it was fanciful to suggest that fingerprints and DNA of the accused Ruddick made their way onto the various items found inside the unit before the grow house was created or were the result of secondary transfer. The fact that his DNA was on the inner surface of two disposable gloves tended against that possibility. Mr Macura said the irresistible inference was that the accused Ruddick was wearing those gloves when tending to the plants. 212 Mr Macura accepted that the prosecution could not prove when it was that the hydroponic equipment was first brought into unit 2, but the evidence of Ms Wilczek established that the most mature of the plants were up to 9 weeks old. Accordingly, it is reasonable to draw the inference that the setting up of the grow house occurred sometime before those plants were brought in and at a time when the accused Ruddick was not in custody. 213 Mr Macura emphasised the fact that the coffee cups with the accused Ruddick’s DNA on them were on an irrigation tank. The plastic safety glasses and water bottle were on top of a table on which was a box of disposable gloves. All of this suggested that the accused Ruddick handled those items at a time proximate to hydroponic equipment and cannabis plants being there. The only conclusion that should be drawn is that his DNA was on those items because of his involvement in the cultivation process. 214 The presence of the accused Ruddick’s fingerprints on the light shade and light globe attachments also establishes that he was involved in setting up the grow house and any other possible explanation for his fingerprints on those items is fanciful and should be discounted. 215 Mr Macura referred to Ms Granozio’s evidence that the invoices for rental payments were sent to each accused’s home addresses. Accordingly, the fact that payments continued to be made for unit 2 is evidence from which an inference can be drawn that it was the accused Ruddick who made those payments. 216 Mr Macura then addressed the discreditable conduct evidence. The presence of small quantities of cannabis in the recycling bin in the accused Ruddick’s garage demonstrate an interest in cannabis and a connection to the grow house in unit 2. 195 T 269. -- 38 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 37 Mr Macura disavowed any submission that this was evidence from which an inference could be drawn that there had been a previous harvest from the grow house in unit 2. Mr Macura also invited me to infer that the clear bags that could be seen in photograph 90 of P6 were the same type as the vacuum sealed bag found at the accused Ruddick’s premises. He accepted that there was no evidence that they were similar but that I could come to that conclusion from a comparison of the photographs. 217 Mr Macura said P11, the notebook with invoices in it, was evidence from which I could infer that there was a connection between the accused. The fact that the accused Ruddick invoiced the accused Grose and his partner in 2014 for work done on vehicles supported Ms Granozio’s evidence that they approached her together to lease the units. Mr Macura said that I could infer that, in 2014, both accused were looking for premises in which to establish a grow house. He said there was no dispute that the accused Grose was carrying on a car spray painting and caravan repair business but that and commercial cultivation of cannabis were not mutually exclusive. There was also no dispute that the accused Ruddick was the lessee of unit 2 and the accused Grose the lessee of unit 1 and the legitimate business of the accused Grose was being carried out in unit 1. 218 Mr Macura then addressed the case against Mr Grose. Mr Macura said the presence of his thumbprints on a light globe attachment established his involvement in the setting up of the grow house. Mr Macura said it was not open to infer that there was an innocent explanation for his thumbprints on the light globe attachment. 219 Mr Macura submitted that an inference could be drawn from P29 that the accused Grose was tending to the plants and permitting the premises to be used for cultivation. He contended that Ms Granozio’s evidence and P15 established that a reference in the electricity bills to unit 7C was a reference to unit 2. Mr Macura said that it would fly in the face of common sense for there to be anything other than chronological lettering of the units from A to D. Mr Macura said that the electricity bills recorded zero daily usage for the specified period and that was inconsistent with the evidence led on behalf of the accused Grose, which established that he was using electricity for the purposes of working on vehicles and caravans. Accordingly, the bills must have been for unit 2 and some form of electricity diversion had occurred. Mr Macura acknowledged that there was no evidence of abstraction or diversion of electricity for unit 2. 220 Mr Macura said that the loose cannabis leaf found in the boot of the accused Grose’s car showed he had an interest in cannabis, and I could infer that this cannabis came from the grow house. Mr Macura said the pot sox bag showed a connection to the grow house. He invited me to draw on everyday life experience to find that such a bag was not a common household item. In doing so, Mr Macura conceded that there was no evidence regarding the prevalence, source or use of a pot sox bag. -- 39 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 38 221 Mr Macura said that the accused Grose was dishonest when he told Senior Constable Duncan that he did not know any of the other tenants. Mr Macura contended that I could find that the accused Grose knew that the accused Ruddick was leasing unit 2. His connection to the accused Ruddick was established on the evidence of Ms Granozio, the invoice book and the fact that Leigh Campbell’s vehicle, in which a light globe was found, was parked outside unit 2. 222 Mr Macura argued that a finding that the accused Grose was paying for the electricity for unit 2 was evidence that he did so knowing that it was being used for the cultivation of cannabis. Accordingly, I could find that this was an act in furtherance of the cultivation. 223 Mr Macura said that there was no dispute that there were more than 20 plants but a finding of 30 plants could be made. The statutory presumption then applies and there was no evidence to rebut it. 224 In relation to count 2, the equipment as described was clearly prescribed equipment and no lawful excuse for its possession had been established. The evidence establishing each accused’s knowledge of and participation in the cultivation of the cannabis was evidence from which possession of the equipment could be inferred. 225 Mr Macura said that the antecedent reports may be used as a basis to infer that there were other people involved in this grow house, but this would not undermine the case against the accused. Defence submissions – Ruddick 226 Mr Rice KC concentrated his submissions on count 1. He referred to the requirement for the prosecution to prove an intention to grow at least 20 controlled plants in order to prove the commercial quantity. 227 Mr Rice KC argued that the forensic evidence did not go as far as the prosecution contends and does not refute the claims Ruddick made to police when they attended his home on 30 June 2020. Ruddick told police that he was not involved, had not been renting the unit for about two years, used to work there at an earlier time with his brother-in-law Leigh Campbell (whose telephone number he provided to police) and was unsure who was now paying the rent. 228 Mr Rice KC said the police were so reliant on the outcome of the forensic examinations that they failed to undertake basic police work. He argued that the evidence of the bags found in Ruddick’s garage with a few bits of dried cannabis was irrelevant. As there was no evidence and no suggestion of a harvest taking place in the grow room before 29 June 2020, the evidence had no probative value. Further, it was found in a bin at premises where no evidence was led establishing Ruddick’s knowledge and possession of those bags and no evidence led regarding other persons who may have lived there and to whom those bags may have belonged. -- 40 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 39 229 No keys to the unit or invoices for rental payments were found at Ruddick’s premises. There was no evidence of a lavish lifestyle, large amounts of cash, press seal bags, globes or pot sox bags. The receipt book simply demonstrated a historical connection between Ruddick and Grose. The police did not obtain telephone records to show an ongoing connection or association between Ruddick and Grose or cell tower evidence to show that his mobile telephone was in the vicinity of the unit during the period charged. Ms Granozio only met Ruddick once in 2014 and did not speak with him again after that. Although there was a formal lease until about September 2016, thereafter the evidence of an ongoing leasing arrangement was entirely unclear. There were two options to renew the lease but no evidence that this occurred. Ms Granozio seemed content to simply receive rent by way of deposits into the account without any inquiry into who was paying those amounts or any insistence on the formality of a binding lease. 230 No evidence was led to prove that it was Ruddick making rental and other payments. No evidence was led to prove there was an ongoing commercial arrangement between Ruddick and Granozio from which it could be inferred that he had an ongoing involvement with unit 2. No evidence was led of the payment of electricity bills by Ruddick for unit 2. No evidence was led of Ruddick’s banking records to show cash withdrawals corresponding with the payment of rent and no security footage showing Ruddick making cash payments to an ATM. 231 Mr Rice KC said it was no answer for the prosecution to suggest that Ruddick was part of a syndicate because this was boots straps reasoning. There was no evidence of syndication. 232 In almost a three-week period leading up to the fire Ruddick was nowhere near the unit. This assumed some importance with respect to the ages of some of the plants in unit 2. Ten of the plants were between one and two weeks’ old. Accordingly, Ruddick could not have had any direct involvement in their cultivation. Another ten plants were between two and four weeks old and accordingly, the possibility that these were cultivated at a time when Ruddick could not have had any direct involvement cannot be excluded. If the reasonable possibility that he had nothing to do with twenty of the plants cannot be excluded, what evidence is there of his involvement in the cultivation of the remaining ten. The evidence points to the possibility of the involvement of others, for example Leigh Campbell. Mr Rice KC said that if I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ruddick had cultivated ten of the plants for sale, then I could convict him of the alternative charge of cultivating a controlled plant pursuant to s 33R and s 33K of the Controlled Substances Act. 233 Mr Rice KC said that proof of the accused’s presence in unit 2 is insufficient. Proof that he knew what was going on is insufficient. The fingerprints and DNA cannot be dated and accordingly they could have been placed on the relevant items at a much earlier time than the particularised period of the alleged offending. Accordingly, there was a reasonable doubt and verdicts of acquittal should be entered. -- 41 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 40 Defence submissions – Grose 234 Mr Graham emphasised the fact that the prosecution must prove that Grose performed a particularised act of cultivation at a time when he knew there were twenty or more plants. 235 The evidence relied upon by the prosecution was as follows: • Ms Granozio’s evidence that there was a joint lease of units 1 and 2. • Ms Granozio’s evidence that she saw Grose outside unit 2 when the roller door to unit 2 was partially open. • The location of a fingerprint belonging to Grose on a globe holder. • The location of pot sox bag in the garden shed and a single cannabis leaf in the boot of Grose’s vehicle. • The electricity bills addressed to Grose at 7C Bellchambers Road. 236 Mr Graham addressed the lie alleged to have been told by Grose when interviewed by police at the scene. The questions that elicited the response relied upon were all expressed in the present tense – do you know of any of the other tenants, have you ever seen any of the other tenants – and accordingly, in order to be satisfied the response was a lie, I would have to be satisfied that Ruddick was a tenant at that time and Grose knew he was a tenant. If I am not satisfied that it was a lie, then I cannot use that answer in and adverse way when evaluating his denials in the balance of the interview and whether I can reject them as a reasonable possibility. 237 There is no evidence in the prosecution case that any cannabis at the unit had been harvested and accordingly the solitary cannabis leaf found in the boot of Grose’s car could not connect him to the unit in any way other than to demonstrate that he had an interest in cannabis. Any such interest was of marginal or negligible relevance. 238 Mr Graham said that Ms Granozio’s evidence was unreliable because it was inconsistent and contradicted by objective evidence. The high-water mark of her evidence was that she formed an impression that Grose and Ruddick wanted to jointly lease units 1 and 2 in 2014. However, the evidence clearly established that there were separate leases in separate names for each unit. Ms Granozio’s evidence about where the leases were signed was inconsistent, with her initially stating that both accused signed them together at a café in Elizabeth and later accepting that Grose signed it at her shop on Anzac Highway. 239 Ms Granozio initially asserted that the rent was always paid on time but when confronted with objective evidence of documents requesting payment of outstanding rent she conceded that Grose was behind in rent to a significant degree in the period leading up to the fire. All of this demonstrated how Ms Granozio could be mistaken about relatively important detail. -- 42 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 41 240 Ultimately, Ms Granozio’s evidence and the exhibits tendered establish that there were two separate leases. Ms Granozio accepted that she may have been mistaken in her evidence that she saw Grose outside unit 2 at a time when the roller door was partly open. That she was mistaken may be explicable by reference to the fact that Grose left his caravans and other belongings on the common driveway and the fact that there were adjoining roller doors to units 1 and 2. Further, she said that she could see caravans inside the unit through the partly open roller door. That was suggestive of the fact that she was looking in unit 1 and not unit 2. 241 Mr Graham said that the evidence led in the defence case was unchallenged and established that Grose was running his car and caravan repair business in unit 1 and often had the roller door open. 242 Mr Graham said that in the walk-through video (P3) there is a collection of hydroponic equipment in the back corner of the corridor in unit 2. There was no evidence led in the prosecution case as to whether the light globe holder on which the fingerprint of Grose was located was on a holder in one of the grow rooms or a holder in the collection of equipment in the corridor. The exhibit logs do not reveal where that holder was located. Accordingly, a finding could not be made that the holder was used for a globe in one of the grow rooms. 243 A globe holder is not itself an item that would attract suspicion and the evidence does not exclude the reasonable possibility that his fingerprint was on that holder because it was touched in innocent circumstances. Further, because the fingerprint could not be dated, the reasonable possibility cannot be excluded that he touched that item well before the cultivation of the crop with which he has been charged. The exhibit number 901916324 appearing in photographs 24 and 25 of P27 does not appear in the exhibit logs and there was no evidence about that number or what it signified. 244 Mr Graham said the pot sox bag assumed little significance as an item of circumstantial evidence, given the absence of any evidence regarding the use of such a bag, its prevalence or whether it was in a place to which Grose had sole or exclusive access. 245 Mr Graham said there were other people who may have had access to unit 2, including Leigh Campbell and Aaron Hutchings, the registered owner of the boat found in unit 2. An inference arises that Aaron Hutchings had access to unit 2 by virtue of the fact his boat was stored there. Simon Farrelly’s fingerprint was found in unit 2 together with unidentified fingerprints. There were other males making cash deposits in payment of rent for unit 2. 246 Mr Graham said that there was no evidence that the premises described as 7C in the origin energy electricity bills addressed to Grose was unit 2. He said there was a multitude of ways in which that could have been proved, including obtaining the electricity bills for all of the units or evidence of the reading of the meter and to which unit the relevant meter related. Mr Graham also said that in the absence -- 43 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 42 of evidence of electricity diversion, I could not infer anything from the fact that the bills showed no usage for the period referenced. 247 Mr Graham concluded his submissions by returning to the particulars of the acts of cultivation alleged against Grose. The only evidence relied upon to establish that he set up the grow house was the fingerprint on an item for which the precise location in the grow house was not established. There was no evidence that he tended to the plants or nurtured them in anyway. The allegation that Grose paid electricity bills does not fall within the particularised act of ‘permitting premises’ and the prosecution should not now be entitled to rely upon a particular upon which it did not open. The evidence fell well short of establishing that Gorse controlled or controlled access to unit 2 such as to support a finding that he permitted those premises to be used for cultivating cannabis. Findings of fact on undisputed matters 248 I make the following findings of fact on the unchallenged or agreed evidence led at trial. 249 I find the facts agreed in P34 proved. 250 I find the following facts proved: 1. Between 1 April 2020 and 29 June 2020, a commercial quantity of a controlled plant was cultivated in a unit in commercial premises at 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North. There were 30 cannabis plants at varying stages of development in the unit. In grow room 1 marked on P2 there were 10 cannabis plants which were between 1 and 2 weeks old. In grow room 2 marked on P2 there were 10 cannabis which were between 2 and 4 weeks old. In grow room 3 marked on P2 there were 10 cannabis plants which were between 7 and 9 weeks old. 2. The person or persons responsible for that cultivation knew they were cannabis plants and intended to sell any of them or their products or believed that another person had that intention. 3. On 29 June 2020 the following equipment was found in unit 2: light shades, a cannabis bud stripper, and carbon filters. This equipment was prescribed equipment as defined in regulation 9 of the Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 (SA). Some of the light shades and other equipment seized by police was located in an area outside of the three room in which the cannabis was growing. 4. The premises at 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North was owned by Giuseppe Marino (the elder), Carmela Marino, Giuseppe Marino (the younger), Anita Marino, Giovanni Granozio and Maria Concetta Granozio. None of the owners were aware that cannabis was being cultivated at their premises. 5. The unit in which the cannabis plants were cultivated was described as unit 2 in a draft lease agreement dated 30 May 2014: D19. 6. A lease for unit 2 was executed in favour of the accused Ruddick and the lease commenced on 1 September 2014 for two years. The lease agreement provided for an option to renew for two years and a further option to renew for one year. The -- 44 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 43 lessors were Giuseppe Marino (the elder), Carmela Marino, Giuseppe Marino (the younger), Anita Marino, Giovanni Granozio and Maria Concetta Granozio. 7. A lease for unit 1, which was the unit closest to Bellchambers Road, was executed in favour of the accused Grose and the lease commenced on 1 September 2014 for two years. The lease agreement provided for an option to renew for two years and a further option to renew for one year. Giuseppe Marino (the elder), Carmela Marino, Giuseppe Marino (the younger), Anita Marino, Giovanni Granozio and Maria Concetta Granozio. 8. The leases for units 1 and 2 were never formally renewed. 9. The annual rent for each of units 1 and 2 was $18,500 per annum. The lessees were also invoiced for council rates, water rates, revenue SA and outgoings. 10. Units 1 and 2 were separated by a wall and there was no internal access between those units during the period 1 September 2014 to 29 June 2020. 11. Ms Granozio had authority to speak on behalf of the lessors and co-owners in relation to matters connected with the premises at 7 Bellchambers Road Edinburgh North. 12. Invoices for rent owing on unit 1 were sent to Andrew Mark Grose at 6 Michael Street, Blakeview SA 5114. On 12 December 2018, Grose was in arrears in the amount of $19,442.96. On 22 May 2019, Grose was in arrears in the amount of $19,364.28. On 10 June 2020, Grose was in arrears in the amount of $21,699.75. 13. Seven electricity invoices were issued by Origin Energy addressed to the accused Grose at 6 Michael Street Blakeview SA 5114 for the period 27 October 2018 – 29 June 2020. The invoices recorded the supply address as 7C Bellchambers Road Elizabeth West SA 5113. Three of the invoices related to estimated meter reads. The invoices included the National Meter Identifier number 20021773257 and the meter number as 690536. The invoices also included dates when payments were received and the method by which those payments were made. The payment methods recorded were ‘CBA SS Dbt Cd MC’, ‘SS Dbt Cd MC’ and ‘BPAY Bank Account’. 14. On 30 June 2020, a single cannabis leaf was found in the boot of a vehicle registered to the accused Grose and a bag with a label ‘pot sox’ was found in a garage on the property at which he lived. 15. On 30 June 2020, a small amount of cannabis leaf was found loose in a recycling bin in the garage of the property at which the accused Ruddick lived. An orange garbage bag and a vacuum sealed bag, both containing small amounts of cannabis leaf, were also found in the recycling bin in the garage. A notebook containing invoices was found in an office area of the property at which the accused Ruddick lived. The invoices were dated from 20 September 2014 to 25 May 2015. The invoices referred to vehicles and tinting. Two invoices were made out to the accused Grose; others were made out to Simon Farrelly, Leigh Campbell and Bianca Anderson. 16. Bags labelled ‘pot sox’ were found on top of one of the water tanks in unit 2 on 29 June 2020. 17. The antecedent reports of Simon Farrelly, Aaron Hutchings, Leigh Campbell and the accused Grose accurately record their respective offender history. On 5 November 2002, Simon Farrelly was convicted in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court of the offence of producing cannabis and fined the sum of $200. This offence was committed on 5 -- 45 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 44 June 2002. On 11 June 2009, Aaron Scott Hutchings, was convicted in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court of cultivating up to the prescribed number of cannabis plants and possessing prescribed equipment. He was convicted and fined $200. Those offences were committed on 11 February 2009. On 11 February 2008, Leigh Michael Campbell was fined $500, without conviction, for the offence of producing cannabis. That offence was committed on 24 November 2007. 18. A boat and trailer registered to Aaron Hutchings was in unit 2 on 29 June 2020. 19. A vehicle registered to Leigh Campbell was in the common driveway of 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North on 29 June 2020. In the glovebox of that vehicle was a box labelled ‘Grow Lush Natural Light Alternative for Professional Growers’. 20. The accused Grose was operating a caravan and car restoration/repair business with Leigh Campbell from unit 1, 7 Bellchambers Road prior to and between 1 April 2020 and 29 June 2020. 21. Vanessa Ha was appropriately credentialled and qualified to give expert evidence regarding fingerprint identification. 22. Patricia King was appropriately credentialled and qualified to give expert evidence regarding DNA analysis, interpretation of results and statistical weighting. 23. Sharon Wilczek was appropriately credentialled and qualified to give expert evidence regarding cannabis growth cycles, ages of cannabis plants and estimates of yield. 24. The DNA of the accused Ruddick was found on the following items located in unit 2: Inner surface of two disposable gloves (one found inside grow room 1 which had the DNA of two other contributors and the other on the floor outside grow room 3 which had the DNA of three other contributors), a cigarette butt (located on the floor inside grow room 1 which had the DNA of one other contributor), a cigarette butt located on the floor outside grown room 3, outer mouth/opening of plastic lid of disposable cup, outer mouth/opening of a second disposable cup with plastic lid (both located outside grow room 1 on a water tank), mouth and outer body of plastic Coles spring water bottle outer mouth/opening (which had the DNA of one other contributor) and the inner surface of plastic safety glasses both found on a makeshift table outside the grow rooms in unit 2 (which had the DNA of two other contributors). 25. Simon Farrelly’s right middle fingerprint was on the light shade shown in photograph 7 of P27 and his left middle fingerprint and left ring fingerprint was on the light shade shown in photograph 14 of P27. 26. Two left thumbprints of the accused Ruddick were on the light shade shown in photograph 10 of P27, found in grow room 1. 27. The left middle fingerprint of the accused Ruddick was on the back of the light globe attachment shown in photograph 18 of P27 and found in unit 2. Another fingerprint was found but it did not belong to Ruddick but was the fingerprint of an unidentified person. -- 46 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 45 28. The left thumbprint of the accused Ruddick was found on the light globe attachment shown in photograph 21 of P27 and found in unit 2. Several others either belonged to an unidentified person or were not suitable for comparison. 29. Two left thumbprints of the accused Grose were found on the back of the light globe attachment shown in photograph 24 of P27 and found in unit 2. Other fingerprints belonged to unidentified persons or were not suitable for comparison. 30. The accused Ruddick and Grose were known to each other. The accused Ruddick had invoiced Grose for car tinting services in October 2014. 31. The accused Ruddick and Leigh Campbell were known to each other. Leigh Campbell was his brother-in-law. Ruddick had invoiced Campbell for car tinting services in October 2014. 32. The accused Ruddick and Simon Farrelly were known to each other. Ruddick had invoiced Farrelly for car tinting services in November 2014 and February 2015. Assessment of witnesses and further findings 251 Police and forensic witnesses 252 The evidence of Commander Attick, the police witnesses and the expert witnesses was not the subject of any serious challenge. I have accepted that Ms Ha, Ms King, Ms Wilczek and Detective O’Malley could give expert opinions in their respective field of expertise, and I have accepted their opinion evidence. I find that each of the relevant police officers appropriately documented the items located and seized and that the chain of custody was kept secure and intact and there was no risk of compromise of the integrity or provenance of any of the exhibits. I accept their evidence of what was observed, located and seized in unit 2 and in other locations. I found Brevet Sergeant Rabig to be a careful witness and I accept her evidence that she counted 30 cannabis plants and processed 20 snip and save samples. I also accept her evidence that there were other light shades in the main area of unit 2, outside of each of the individual grow rooms in which the cannabis was found. 253 Detective O’Malley gave evidence of syndication in commercial cannabis cultivation operations. I accept his evidence on this topic but note that there was no allegation made and no evidence led from which a finding could be made that either accused were involved in a syndicate. I note that a number of invoices for purchases from Bunnings and one invoice for purchases from Woolworths were located in unit 2. Those invoices reveal that the purchases were paid for via EFT and a card number is provided on each invoice. Those card numbers vary between invoices. No evidence was adduced of any attempt to identify the credit or debit card holder for the cards used for those transactions either through banking records or from the relevant Bunnings and Woolworths stores. -- 47 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 46 Ms Granozio and the leasing arrangements for units 1 and 2 254 I found Ms Granozio to be an honest witness but the reliability of her evidence on some matters was affected by the passage of time and was established to be at odds with contemporaneous documentary records. 255 I have disregarded the hearsay evidence she gave regarding the numbering of the units by an architect as marked by her on P15. The prosecution did not lead any admissible evidence to prove that the units were, at any stage, designated with letters A, B, C and D. The Schedule to the draft lease (D19) annexes an extract from the certificate of title register book, volume 6125, Folio 731 which numbers the units 1 – 4, with unit 1 being the unit closest to Bellchambers Road. The memoranda of disclosure and draft lease for unit 2 refer to the units rented to Grose and Ruddick as unit 1 and 2 respectively. It follows that I am not prepared to infer that the reference in the Origin electricity bills issued to the accused Grose for 7C Bellchambers Road is a reference to unit 2, the unit in which the cannabis was located. The prosecution did not lead any evidence regarding the meter referred to in the electricity bills and from which readings were taken such as to demonstrate that this meter recorded electricity supply and usage to unit 2. Accordingly, there is no evidence from which I can infer and find that the accused Grose was paying the electricity bills for unit 2 during the charged period and therefore taking part in the process of cultivation of the cannabis. 256 I reject Ms Granozio’s evidence that the accused together conveyed to her an intention to take out a joint lease over the two units or that there was ever a joint lease. The documentary evidence (P16, P17 and D24) clearly establishes that there were separate leases for units 1 and 2 which commenced in September 2014 for a period of two years. Her evidence that both accused met with her at a café in Elizabeth to discuss taking out a joint lease was unconvincing. She said she did not meet with them again before the leases were executed. However, she agreed in cross-examination that she took the accused Grose on a view of the units before he signed the lease. He signed the lease at her shop on Anzac Highway. 257 Finally, she accepted that her memory of events in 2014 was not completely reliable. I consider the likely scenario is that she has conflated the information given to her by Colliers about the prospective tenants and assumed that as both tenants were involved in car repairs the lease was intended to be a joint one. 258 Ms Granozio’s evidence regarding the payment of rent by the tenants of units 1 and 2 also proved to be unreliable. Initially she said that the rent for both units was always paid on time. She then said that there were occasions when each of the accused did not pay their rent when due and there would be a month delay before they caught up. Finally, she said that she never spoke to Ruddick because the payments for unit 2 were always on time. While there is no evidence to refute her evidence on this topic as it related to unit 2, it certainly was not true for unit 1. The invoices tendered by defence counsel for the accused Grose show that Grose was in arrears to a significant degree between 2018 and 2020 and that Ms Granozio was chasing him for payment. -- 48 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 47 259 Ms Granozio said that the leases were renewed from time to time. There was no evidence to support her assertion. No documents were produced to establish that the lease for either unit 1 or two was formally renewed. Clause 5.8 of D19 sets out the process by which the lease could be renewed. Ms Granozio agreed that the lease entered into by the accused Grose for unit 1 was never formally renewed. I find that the leases for unit 1 and unit 2 expired at the end of the two-year term and thereafter neither the lessors nor the lessees were bound by the terms of the original lease. What occurred thereafter was an informal arrangement whereby invoices for rent were issued for those units. 260 Given the difficulty adverted to by Ms Granozio in finding tenants for the units, I find that Ms Granozio and the other lessors were simply happy to receive rental payments, even if they were not regular or on time. Ms Granozio appeared to take little interest in the tenants or their activities, provided the rental payments were being made, even if the tenant was in arrears. 261 I am convinced that Ms Granozio was mistaken in her evidence that when she attended the premises, she saw the accused out the front of what she described as unit 7C (unit 2) and the roller door was always half up and half down and the roller door to unit 1 was always shut. She conceded that she may have been wrong about the roller door to unit 1 always being shut and agreed that she often saw the accused Grose working on caravans in the common driveway for the entire length of the units. 262 I am satisfied on the evidence of Ms Granozio and D20 – D24 that the invoices for rent were being sent to the home address of the accused Grose between 2018 and 2020. Ms Granozio said that the invoices for rent for unit 2 were always sent to the home address of the accused Ruddick and that she was certain that she wrote the address on the envelope when her bookkeeper handed her the invoice. However, no invoices addressed to the accused Ruddick were produced. Ms Granozio expressed a similar degree of certainty on other topics upon which objective evidence proved her to be mistaken. In the absence of the invoices themselves and noting my concerns regarding the reliability of her evidence on associated topics, I am not prepared to make a positive finding about the addresses to which the invoices for unit 2 were sent, particularly during the charged period. 263 Following the expiry of the lease for unit 2 on 1 September 2016 it was not formally renewed and there was no obligation on the accused Ruddick to notify Ms Granozio of any subletting arrangement pursuant to clause 3.6 of D19. I accept Ms Granozio’s evidence that the rent continued to be paid but she never saw the accused Ruddick after the initial meeting in 2014 and never saw him at or near unit 2 in the ensuing 6-year period. 264 There is no direct evidence that the payments of rent for unit 2 were made by the accused Ruddick. However, it is reasonable to infer, and I find that during the period of the lease until its expiry on 1 September 2016, the accused Ruddick was responsible for making those payments. -- 49 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 48 265 From 1 September 2016, I find that there was no binding commercial agreement between either accused and the lessors of 7 Bellchambers Road. There is no direct evidence that the accused Ruddick attended unit 2 at any time following the execution of the lease. The agreed facts establish that the accused Ruddick did not make cash payments for rent on 18 and 23 June 2020 and those payments were made by two unidentified men. The agreed facts also establish that the accused Ruddick did not attend unit 2 between 9 June and 14 August 2020. 266 There is direct evidence from Ms Granozio that supports a finding that the accused Grose attended unit 1 on a regular basis throughout the period September 2014 – 29 June 2020 and operated a caravan and car repair business from unit 1. Defence witnesses called by accused Grose 267 The evidence given by Mr Grose, Mr Radford and Mr Graham was not challenged by the prosecutor. The evidence of Mr Grose was supported by contemporaneous photographs and the dates upon which they were taken was not challenged. I found him to be a thoughtful and honest witness. His evidence was not contradicted by any evidence in the prosecution case which I have accepted. It was supported by the evidence of Ms Granozio, his presence at the scene when MFS and police attended on 29 June 2020 and the appearance of unit 1 and the vehicles in the common driveway on that day. I accept his evidence and am prepared to act upon it. 268 The evidence of Mr Radford and Mr Graham corroborated the evidence of Mr Grose. Each of those witnesses gave their evidence in a straightforward and convincing manner. I accept their evidence. Their evidence establishes that throughout 2020 until the date of the fire, the accused Grose was working in unit 1 repairing caravans and cars. Leigh Campbell was also often there working on cars and caravans. The evidence of Mr Gale and Mr Radford regarding Leigh Campbell’s role in the business and presence at the premises was supported by his presence on the day of the fire. Their evidence also establishes that the roller door of unit 1 was often open. No person was sighted at or in unit 2 and the accused Grose did not attend at or in unit 2 during the periods that Mr Grose, Mr Radford or Mr Gale attended. 269 Accordingly, I find that the accused Grose was operating a caravan and car repair business from unit 1 from the time that the lease was executed in 2014 until the date of the fire on 29 June 2020. Leigh Campbell assisted him in that business. He also used the common driveway from time to time to park his vehicles and other equipment and work on them. Analysis The case against the accused Grose 270 The key pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove that the accused Grose cultivated a commercial quantity of cannabis for sale by setting up -- 50 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 49 the grow house in unit 2, attending unit 2 to nurture grow and harvest the cannabis and by paying the electricity bills for unit 2 were: 1. Ms Granozio’s evidence that the accused approached her together to lease units 1 and 2 and that she had seen the accused Grose outside unit 2 when the roller door was partially open. 2. The accused’s thumbprint on a light globe attachment found in unit 2. 3. The electricity bills addressed to the accused for unit 7C Bellchambers Road. 4. The single cannabis leaf found in the boot of a vehicle registered to the accused. 5. A single pot sox bag found in the shed on the property at which the accused lived. 271 The same pieces of evidence were relied upon by the prosecution to prove that the accused was in possession of the prescribed equipment in unit 2. In other words, if the act(s) of cultivation were proved, the only inference that could be drawn is that the accused was in possession (jointly with the accused Ruddick) of the equipment being used to cultivate the cannabis. 272 In order to find the accused Grose guilty, I would have to reject as false or not reasonably possible, his denial in the record of interview of having attended unit two other than when he was first considering which unit to rent. 273 I have found that the accused were known to each other. I am unable to make any finding regarding the nature of their association and whether it extended beyond the fact that the accused Ruddick performed car tinting work for him in 2014, and a mutual association with Leigh Campbell. 274 I have carefully considered the interview between the accused and Senior Constable Duncan and Detective Brevet Sergeant Richards. The accused’s account of the leasing arrangements was consistent with the evidence led at trial. His account of viewing unit 2 when first considering which of the units to rent was also consistent with Ms Granozio’s evidence that she took him for a view of the units. The premise of the questions ‘do you know any of the other tenants’ and ‘have you ever seen any of the other tenants’ was an inquiry of his knowledge of the persons who leased the units at that time, and not at some earlier point of time or throughout the period of his tenancy. In order to be satisfied that his denial of knowing anyone other than Ms Granozio was false, I would have to be satisfied that at the time of the interview he was aware of the leasing arrangements with respect to any or all of the other units and the identity of the lessee(s). 275 The state of the evidence regarding the tenancy of unit 2 at the time of the interview, including the agreed facts that the accused Ruddick did not attend unit 2 between 9 June 2020 and 29 June 2020, is such that I am not prepared to find that the accused Grose lied to police on this topic. It follows that the credibility of the remaining answers in his record of interview is not undermined by his answers to the questions regarding his knowledge of the other tenants. -- 51 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 50 276 I have already rejected Ms Granozio’s evidence of a joint approach by the accused to lease units 1 and 2 and her evidence that she saw the accused Grose outside unit 2 at a time when its roller door was halfway up. I have also determined that P29 cannot establish that the accused Grose was paying the electricity bills for unit 2. Accordingly, it is necessary to evaluate the remaining key pieces of evidence against the evidence as a whole to determine whether either charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 277 There is no evidentiary basis upon which I could conclude that the single cannabis leaf found in the boot of a vehicle registered to the accused Grose came from unit 2. There was no evidence in the prosecution case from which I could find that any of the cannabis grown in unit 2 had been harvested. The prosecution disavowed any suggestion that there had been any such harvest. The forensic evidence led was that the plants were at varying stages of maturity, and some were too young to estimate a yield. Plainly they would have been harvested at some stage, but that stage had not yet been reached. There is no evidence from which I could infer that there was a previous cultivation at those premises, and I remind myself that this is not the case presented by the prosecution at trial. 278 The fact that the single cannabis leaf was in the boot of a vehicle registered to the accused Grose, is evidence from which I could infer that someone using that car had transported an unknown quantity of cannabis in the boot. As the car was registered to the accused Grose, an inference arises that it was him, particularly given the presence of the invoices for rent for unit 1 found in the glove box. However, no evidence was led to establish that the accused Grose had exclusive use of that vehicle or for how long the cannabis leaf had been in the boot. The probative value of this item of circumstantial evidence in these circumstances is low. 279 The pot sox bag found in the rear shed of the accused’s property looks similar or the same to the pot sox bags located in unit 2. I infer and find that they are the same type of bag. No evidence was led regarding these bags, the uses to which they are put, where they can be sourced and the prevalence of their use, or whether they are bags that are often used in the hydroponic cultivation of cannabis. Accordingly, the probative value of the correspondence between the bags in establishing a connection between the accused and the cannabis being grown in unit 2 is low. 280 I am satisfied that the accused Grose handled the light globe attachment at some point in time. That light globe attachment was found in unit 2. However, the precise location of that attachment within unit 2 has not been proved, in particular, it has not been proved that this attachment was in one of the grow rooms or in the collection of hydroponic equipment that can be seen in the walk through video in the back corner of the corridor in unit 2. No evidence was led on this topic. The circumstances in and time at which the accused Grose handled this item are unclear. The thumbprints cannot be dated. No other forensic evidence was found linking the accused Grose to unit 2. It is reasonably possible that he handled the -- 52 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 51 light globe attachment in innocent circumstances. The light globe attachment is not an item of prescribed equipment particularised in count 2. 281 I have accepted the evidence led in the defence case as reliable and credible. I find that the accused was running a legitimate business from unit 1 throughout the period of his tenancy. None of the persons who attended, sometimes unannounced, to visit him, saw him in, or in the vicinity of unit 2. None of those persons saw any person in, or in the vicinity of unit 2. No equipment or documents associated with the accused were found in unit 2. Accordingly, the accused’s presence in a unit adjoining a unit in which cannabis was being cultivated has an innocent explanation. Other than a historical association with the accused Ruddick, there is no evidence of an ongoing association between the two of them. Conclusion 282 The state of the evidence as a whole against the accused Grose leaves me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt on both counts. His guilt is not the only rational inference that can be drawn from the evidence. I cannot exclude the reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence open on the evidence, namely that he simply had no idea that cannabis was being cultivated in unit 2 and was not in possession of the prescribed equipment in that unit. 283 Accordingly, I find the accused not guilty of counts 1 and 2. The case against the accused Ruddick 284 The key pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove that the accused Ruddick cultivated a commercial quantity of cannabis for sale by setting up the grow house in unit 2 and attending unit 2 to nurture grow and harvest the cannabis until the time of his remand in custody on 9 June 2020 were: 1. The undisputed evidence that Ruddick leased unit 2 in 2014 under a lease agreement for two years. 2. Rental payments for unit 2 continued to be made from the time the lease was executed until the date of the discovery of the grow house in unit 2, namely 29 June 2020. 3. Ruddick’s DNA was found on a number of items in unit 2, namely the inner surface of two disposable gloves (one found inside grow room 1 in unit 2, and the other on the floor outside grow room 3) a cigarette butt (located on the floor inside grow room 1 in unit 2), a cigarette butt (located on the floor outside grow room 3) and the outer mouth/opening of two disposable cups (located outside grow room 1 on a water tank), the inner surface of plastic safety glasses and the mouth and outer body of plastic Coles spring water bottle outer mouth/opening (both found on a makeshift table outside the grow rooms in unit 2). 4. Ruddick’s fingerprints were found on two light globe attachments (found in unit 2) and one light shade found in grow room 1 of unit 2. The location of the light shade can be ascertained by cross-referencing the exhibit numbers in the photograph of this -- 53 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 52 item in P27 and the exhibit log in P4. However, that exercise cannot be performed for the light globe attachments as there is no corresponding exhibit number. 5. A small amount of cannabis leaf was found loose in a recycling bin in the garage of the property at which Ruddick lived. An orange garbage bag and vacuum sealed bag both containing small amounts of cannabis leaf were also found in the recycling bin. Clear bags shown in photographs 89 and 90 of P6 were found in unit 2. 285 There is an insufficient evidentiary basis upon which I could conclude that during the charged period, Ruddick had any ongoing commercial arrangement with Ms Granozio to rent unit 2. I cannot reject as false his assertion to Senior Constable Duncan that he had not been renting the unit for the last couple of years. I am satisfied that rental payments continued to be made, but I cannot be satisfied that it was Ruddick who made or was responsible for those payments. Plainly he did not make the payments on 18 and 23 June 2020. There is no evidence from which I could infer that those payments were made on his behalf or at his direction. 286 Accordingly, I cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that Ruddick sub- let the premises to another person or persons at some time prior to the charged period. I can exclude the possibility that Ms Granozio was involved in or had any knowledge that this occurred. On the state of the evidence, I have been unable to make a finding regarding the address to which invoices for rental and associated payments for unit 2 were sent during the charged period. However, if the address of those invoices was redirected from Ruddick’s address following the expiry after two years of the formal lease, Ruddick must have been involved in that. 287 In order to have sub-let the premises, Ruddick must have entered into some arrangement with that person or persons for the rent to continue to be paid and for the invoices to be provided to that person or persons so the payments could be made. The fact that rent continued to be paid is evidence from which I can infer that the person making the payments was doing so in return for the use of the premises, whether a legal obligation to do so existed or not. 288 The agreed facts establish, and I find that the accused Ruddick did not attend within 200 metres of 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North or 6 Michael Street Blakeview between 9 June and 29 June 2020. 289 Accordingly, I cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that at the time of the alleged offences, Ruddick was not ‘renting’ unit 2 and that another person or persons had access to unit 2 and were using the premises. 290 I reject the submission by the prosecution that Ruddick leased the premises in 2014 for the purpose of setting up grow rooms to cultivate cannabis. There is no evidentiary support for this submission. 291 There is no evidentiary basis upon which I could conclude that the small amount of cannabis leaf found in the recycling bin and in the orange garbage bag and vacuum sealed bag came from unit 2. There was no evidence in the prosecution case from which I could find that any of the cannabis grown in unit 2 had been -- 54 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 53 harvested. The prosecution disavowed any suggestion that there had been any such harvest. The forensic evidence led was that the plants were at varying stages of maturity, and some were too young to estimate a yield. Plainly they would have been harvested at some stage, but that stage had not yet been reached. There is no evidence from which I could infer that there was a previous cultivation at those premises, and I remind myself that this is not the case presented by the prosecution at trial. 292 There was no evidence led regarding the living arrangements at the property occupied by Ruddick and whether other persons lived or frequented there. Proof that Ruddick had an interest in cannabis without more has such negligible probative value in the circumstances of this case that I regard the evidence as bordering on irrelevant. 293 I cannot conclude from a visual comparison alone that the vacuum sealed bag was of the same type as found in unit 2. Even if it could be proved that Ruddick was in possession of those bags and the cannabis remnants in them, this evidence does not assist in connecting Ruddick to unit 2 or the cannabis plants being cultivated in it. 294 As mentioned, I have found that Ruddick did not attend within 200 metres of 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North or 6 Michael Street Blakeview between 9 June and 29 June 2020. 295 I cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that, based on the evidence of Ms Wilczek (and noting the inexact science of determining the age of cannabis plants), that the cannabis plants in grow rooms 1 and 2 were planted or propagated at a time when the accused Ruddick was in custody or on home detention bail and he did not attend unit 2 or the vicinity of 7 Bellchambers Road, Edinburgh North. During this period, two other unidentified men made the rental payments for unit 2. Given my findings regarding the state of the evidence regarding the leasing arrangements for unit 2, I cannot infer and find that those payments were made at Ruddick’s direction. 296 The accused Ruddick could not have deposited his DNA or fingerprints on any of the relevant items in unit 2 between 9 June 2020 and 16 June 2020 because he was in custody. Between 16 June 2020 and 29 June 2020, he did not attend within 200 metres of unit 2 and I find that he could not have deposited his DNA or fingerprints on the relevant items during that time as it is highly unlikely that he did so at some other location and any or all of those items were then transported to unit 2. 297 Accordingly, if his DNA was deposited on the disposable glove and cigarette butt whilst he was in the area comprising grow room 1 and those items were left there undisturbed until police found them on 29 June 2020, this must have occurred at a time prior to the germination or the propagation of the cannabis plants in grow room 1. Alternatively, Ruddick’s DNA may have been deposited on those items in -- 55 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 54 some other location prior to 9 June 2020 and they were subsequently moved into grow room 1. The cigarette butt had DNA on it from another person and the glove had DNA on it from two other persons, suggesting contact with those items by another person or persons. 298 Similarly, Ruddick’s two thumbprints on the lightshade in grow room 1 must have been placed there at some time prior to 9 June 2020 and prior to the germination or propagation of the cannabis plants in grow room 1. Accordingly, he could not have handled that lightshade in the course of tending to or nurturing the cannabis plants in grow room 1. 299 The forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence relevant to proof of Ruddick’s presence in unit 2 and the performance by him of the particularised acts of cultivation during the charged period. However, it is not possible to determine whether his DNA was deposited on the relevant items whilst he was present within unit 2 or whether the deposits were the result of primary, secondary or tertiary transfer. It is not possible to determine that his fingerprints were placed on the light globe attachments and light shade in the course of those items being handled by him for the purpose of setting up the grow rooms or tending or nurturing the cannabis plants. What inferences I am prepared to draw from the forensic evidence depends upon my assessment of the evidence as a whole and the weight I accord to the united force of all of the circumstances. 300 It is not possible to determine when it was that the grow rooms were constructed, and the prescribed and other equipment was taken to unit 2 and set up. The set up was relatively sophisticated and there was a quantity of prescribed equipment that was not being used at the time of police attendance. However, the setting up of grow room 3 likely occurred during the charged period given the age of the cannabis plants in that room. Conclusion 301 The evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt as to whether Ruddick performed any of the particularised acts of cultivation with respect to the cannabis in grow rooms 1 and 2. 302 That requires me to return a verdict of not guilty of the charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of controlled plants for sale because it has not been proved that he cultivated a commercial quantity of cannabis plants, namely 20 or more. 303 That is not the end of the matter. I must consider whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ruddick cultivated the cannabis in grow room 3, namely ten of the plants for sale. If so, I would be required to return a guilty verdict on the alternative charge of cultivating a controlled plant for sale pursuant to s 33R and s 33B(3) CSA. 304 The evidence suggests that other persons, some of whom remain unidentified, had access to and were present within unit 2 and came into contact -- 56 of 57 -- [2024] SADC 63 55 with many of the items upon which Ruddick’s DNA was deposited and also with some of the prescribed equipment. The cultivation of the cannabis in unit 2 was likely performed by more than one person and at a time when I have found that it is reasonably possible that Ruddick had sub-let the premises to another person or persons.196 305 Notwithstanding that I am suspicious of Ruddick’s knowledge of and involvement in the activities taking place within unit 2, evidence capable of resolving the doubts I have regarding his involvement in the setting up of grow room 3 or his involvement in the ongoing cultivation of the ten plants in grow room 3 is lacking in this case. For example, evidence of telephone records, cell tower data, banking records, electricity invoices and payment details, key to unit 2 and the identification of the persons responsible for paying the invoices found in unit 2 is the type of evidence that might have assisted in resolving these doubts. 306 I cannot exclude the reasonable hypothesis that his DNA was deposited on the various items at a time prior to the construction of the grow rooms and the cultivation of the cannabis in grow room 3 and that he handled the light shade and light globe attachments in circumstances short of his knowing involvement in the cultivation of the cannabis plants. 307 I find the accused Ruddick not guilty of the alternative charge of cultivating a controlled plant for sale. 308 In light of my findings, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ruddick was in possession of any of the prescribed equipment particularised in the charge and I return a verdict of not guilty on count 2. Verdicts. 309 I find the accused Grose not guilty of counts 1 and 2. 310 I find the accused Ruddick not guilty of count 1, not guilty of the alternative charge of cultivating a controlled plant for sale, and not guilty of count 2. 196 The evidence does not enable me to make a firm finding as to the identity of the other persons involved. I have not placed any weight on the antecedent reports of Farrelly, Campbell and Hutchings. Although each has committed offences of producing or cultivating cannabis I could not draw an inference from those facts that they were responsible for the cultivation of these cannabis plants other than by propensity reasoning. -- 57 of 57 --