Cannabis cultivation appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld due to lack of evidence proving defendant's knowledge.

[*768] 1971 November 18

(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, MALACHTOS, JJ. )

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

The Attorney-General of the Republic,

Appellant,

v.

Ali Osman Hassan.

Respondent,

(Criminal Appeal No. 3282).

Drugs - Dangerous drugs - Cannabis sativa - Four cannabis plants found in the middle of a field, planted with other plants - Lack of knowledge that plants in question were of the cannabis

genus - No proof of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt - Acquittal - Appeal -Not established that the trial judge misdirected

himself regarding the principle of law governing the proof of guilt in a criminal case or that he misapplied it to the facts before him,

Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Acquittal - Appeal from an acquittal - Grounds on which it can succeed - Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155 section 137(l)(a).

A. Frangos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Appellant.

O. Mehmet, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Court was delivered by:-

TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.; In this case the Attorney- General of the Republic has appealed against the acquittal [*769] of the respondent, by the District Court in Famagusta, on a count charging him with having knowingly cultivated cannabis plants, contrary to section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs Law, 1967 (Law 3/67).

Learned counsel who appeared for the appellant has stated that this appeal is being made under subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of section 137(l)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, which provide that an appeal such as this one may be made, or be sanctioned, by the Attorney-General on, respectively, the ground "that there was no evidence on which the Court could reasonably find a fact or facts necessary to support" its judgment and on the ground "that the law was wrongly applied to the facts".

The salient facts of this case are, very briefly, that in the middle of a field of the respondent, which was planted with other crops, there were found by the police four cannabis plants; the appellant denied knowledge of the nature of the plants and stated that they had grown on their own.

The learned trial judge found that the respondent had been cultivating the cannabis plants because he "not only tolerated the existence of those plants, but contributed to their growth by irrigating the area, where they were growing". He, then, after referring to the cases of Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner,

(1968) 2 All E.R. 356, Sweet v. Parsley, (1969) 1 All E.R. 347, R. v. Niemira, (1970) Crim. L.R. 28, R. v. Fernandez, (1970) Grim. L. R. 277, and R. v. Marriot, (1971) 1 All E.R. 595, took the view that [*771] of Woolmington v. D.P.P., 25 Cr. App. R. 72 and Kafalos v. The Queen, 19 C.L.R, 121, which were followed in Charitonos and others v. The Republic, (1971) 3 J.S.C. 284) the judge was entitled in law to decide as he has done.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted, under sub-paragraph (i) of section 137(l)(a), that there was no evidence on which the trial judge could reasonably find that there existed "wild growth about the garden" of the respondent: This was a finding of fact necessary to support the judgment appealed from as it was because, inter alia, of this finding that the judge felt doubt as to whether the respondent was aware of the nature of the four cannabis plants.

We have perused the relevant evidence on record, and particularly the evidence referred to in connection with the finding in question by the trial judge in his judgment, and we are of the view that such evidence might give rise to the inference that there was wild growth

- other than the cannabis plants - in the garden of the respondent. So we cannot say that it has been established that there was no evidence on which the trial Court could find as it did.

In concluding we would like to stress that this was, indeed, a serious case and, therefore, it cannot in any sense be said that this was not a case in which it was proper to bring the matter before this Court on appeal; however, for the reasons given the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.