Manufacturing drugs (Section 6(1)(b) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975)

Charge 1: Manufacturing drugs under section 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

The Crown must prove each element of the offence. That is called the burden of proof. The Crown carries that burden. Also, the Crown must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt. That is called the standard of proof. It means that you must be sure that each element is proved.

1.	Are you sure that the substance found at 16 Rongoai Road was methamphetamine?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question two.
2.	Are you sure that the methamphetamine was made at 16 Rongoai Road between 1 January 2019 and 1 April 2019?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question three.
3.	Are you sure that Mr Smith was involved with and/or assisted the process of making the methamphetamine?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question four.
4.	Are you sure that Mr Smith intended to make the methamphetamine?
	If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, go to question five.
5.	Are you sure that Mr Smith knew that a controlled drug would be made, namely methamphetamine [or some other controlled drug, in this case pseudoephedrine] or was reckless as to whether a controlled drug would be made?
	[Note: The mental element of the offence is assumed in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise. Therefore, this issue will only need to be put to the jury where the defendant has pointed to some evidence to raise the issue. If there is such evidence, the Crown is required to prove the mental element beyond reasonable doubt.] “Reckless” means that Mr Smith recognised that there was a real possibility that methamphetamine was a controlled drug and, having regard to that possibility, his actions in producing methamphetamine were unreasonable. “Unreasonable” actions are actions that a reasonable and prudent person would not have taken. If no, find Mr Smith not guilty. If yes, find Mr Smith guilty.