Cannabis Possession Charge NSW: No Conviction After 5g Cannabis Found
National Criminal Lawyers® | NSW Drug Possession & Section 10 Case Study
National Criminal Lawyers® recently achieved a no-conviction result for a client charged with possessing 5 grams of cannabis after police located the drug in the centre console of a vehicle she was driving.
Importantly, the defence did not simply accept every allegation contained in the original police facts. Detailed written representations were prepared addressing a series of additional assertions that went beyond the possession offence our client was prepared to admit, including references to earlier cannabis cautions, alleged statements, cannabis-related items elsewhere in the vehicle, police opinions concerning her response during the interaction and driving conduct that was not the subject of a traffic charge.
At Penrith Local Court on 17 September 2026, the client pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited drug. The Court found her guilty without proceeding to conviction and imposed a six-month Conditional Release Order (CRO), commencing that day and expiring on 16 March 2027.
The cannabis possession charge
Our client was charged with possessing 5 grams of cannabis under section 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). Section 10(1) provides that a person who has a prohibited drug in his or her possession is guilty of an offence.
According to the police material, officers stopped a vehicle in Oxley Park on 1 August 2026 and searched it. Cannabis was located in the centre console and weighed at 5 grams. Our client was subsequently issued with a Court Attendance Notice requiring her to appear at Penrith Local Court.
For a cannabis possession charge in NSW, the quantity of the drug is only one part of the case. The location of the drug, the surrounding circumstances and the factual narrative the prosecution asks the Court to accept can all become important when a person is sentenced.
Why the police facts mattered
A guilty plea to possessing cannabis does not necessarily mean that an accused person accepts every additional allegation contained in a police facts sheet. The sentencing Court must deal with the offence on an appropriate factual basis, and disputed assertions should not simply be treated as established aggravating facts because they appear in the prosecution narrative.
In this matter, the original police facts went beyond the discovery of the 5 grams of cannabis. They referred to earlier cannabis cautions, alleged statements made to police, cannabis-related items elsewhere in the vehicle, an assessment of our client’s response during the police interaction and the driving that led to the vehicle stop.
Some of those matters were disputed. Others concerned alleged conduct for which our client had not been charged. National Criminal Lawyers® considered it important to identify those matters before sentence and distinguish them from the possession offence our client was prepared to admit.
Detailed representations about the factual basis of sentence
National Criminal Lawyers® prepared written representations proposing a revised account of the offence. The proposed facts retained the central matters relevant to the charge: police searched the vehicle, located cannabis in the centre console, weighed it at 5 grams and charged our client with possession.
The representations did not seek to dispute the legality of the search. Their purpose was to identify the conduct admitted for sentence and address additional assertions our client did not accept as part of that conduct.
In particular, the representations addressed the earlier cautions, an allegation that our client had been dishonest about them, references to residue and smoked cannabis cigarettes, police opinions about her concern or remorse, and the account of her driving even though no traffic charge was before the Court.
This work illustrates an important part of defending a guilty plea. Criminal defence representation is not limited to asking a Court for leniency at the end of a matter. It can also involve carefully scrutinising the charge, the police facts and the factual basis upon which the Court will be asked to sentence the client.
Detailed representations were therefore made seeking amendments to the factual basis of the plea. The material available for this case study does not establish that every proposed amendment was accepted, so no such claim is made. What is clear is that the disputed and potentially prejudicial assertions were identified and addressed before sentence.
Penrith Local Court result: six-month CRO without conviction
The matter was finalised at Penrith Local Court on 17 September 2026. The Court accepted the client’s guilty plea to possessing a prohibited drug and found her guilty. However, the Court did not proceed to conviction.
Instead, the client received a Conditional Release Order for six months, commencing on 17 September 2026 and expiring on 16 March 2027. The order contained the standard conditions that she not commit any offence while subject to the CRO and that she appear before the Court if called upon to do so during its term.
The result meant that no conviction was recorded for the cannabis possession offence.
What is a Section 10 CRO without conviction?
People often refer to a no-conviction outcome as a “Section 10”. Under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), a Court that finds a person guilty may, in an appropriate case, deal with that person without proceeding to conviction. One available order is a Conditional Release Order without conviction under section 10(1)(b), read with section 9.
That should not be confused with section 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which creates the offence of possessing a prohibited drug. The two provisions are in different Acts and perform very different functions.
A CRO without conviction does not mean the charge was withdrawn or that the person was acquitted. The Court has found the person guilty, but has exercised the sentencing discretion not to record a conviction, subject to the conditions of the CRO.
Does 5 grams of cannabis automatically mean no conviction?
No. The fact that a cannabis possession charge involves 5 grams does not guarantee a Section 10 or CRO without conviction. Nor does a guilty plea automatically produce a no-conviction result.
The Court considers the offence and the circumstances of the person before it. The factual basis of sentence, the material placed before the Court and the submissions made on the client’s behalf can all be important. Another person charged with possessing the same quantity may receive a different outcome.
Can police facts be changed before sentence in NSW?
Where a person intends to plead guilty but disputes part of the prosecution narrative, the factual basis of sentence may need to be addressed before the matter is finalised. Depending on the evidence and instructions, this can involve representations to police seeking agreed amendments or, where a material factual dispute remains, consideration of the appropriate procedure for resolving that dispute.
National Criminal Lawyers® explains this broader approach on its Drug Possession page, including the elements of possession and the options available when defending a drug possession charge.
Do I have to accept everything in the police facts if I plead guilty?
A plea of guilty admits the offence, but the precise factual basis of sentence still matters. If an allegation is disputed or goes beyond the offence admitted, legal advice should be obtained about whether and how it should be addressed. The correct approach depends on the evidence and the particular dispute.
This case demonstrates why reviewing the police facts early can be important. Here, the defence identified the precise possession offence our client was prepared to admit and made detailed representations concerning additional assertions in the initial police account before the matter proceeded to sentence.
Why this result matters
For our client, the confirmed result was a finding of guilt without conviction and a six-month CRO. The case also demonstrates the importance of examining the prosecution narrative even where a client intends to plead guilty.
The defence strategy was directed not only to the ultimate sentencing outcome, but also to ensuring that disputed allegations and uncharged conduct in the police account were identified rather than left unexamined. That preparation formed part of the matter ultimately presented at Penrith Local Court.
Court orders confirming the no-conviction result
The redacted Penrith Local Court orders confirm that the plea of guilty was accepted and that the client was found guilty without proceeding to conviction. They record the six-month Conditional Release Order commencing on 17 September 2026 and expiring on 16 March 2027.
Recommended publication link: View the redacted Penrith Local Court order confirming the CRO without conviction.
Charged with cannabis possession in Penrith or elsewhere in NSW?
National Criminal Lawyers® represents clients charged with drug possession and other drug offences throughout Sydney and New South Wales. Our Penrith criminal lawyers regularly appear at Penrith Local Court and can review the Court Attendance Notice, police facts and evidence, advise whether representations should be made and prepare the matter for hearing or sentence.
This case study concerns one recent matter handled by National Criminal Lawyers®. Past results do not guarantee a particular outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Read the orders:
