Psychoactive substance — 5F-ADB — reserved judgment — elements of the offence — synthetic cannabinoid — Hansen v R [2007] 3 NZLR 1 — Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, ss 9, 26, 70 & 99 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 130 (1). Two constables went to the defendant's address to perform a bail check. On approaching the house one of the constables smelt cannabis and decided to undertake a search. The constable found the first defendant in the shed smoking cannabis along with other items. Upon analysis it was found that the plant material in the defendants bag contained 5F-ADB, a synthetic cannabinoid. The defendants were jointly charged under the Psychoactive Substances Act with having in their possession a substance which is not an approved product. The court noted that in defining a psychoactive substance the definition depends on the prosecution adducing evidence that the substance alleged to be is one which is capable of inducing a psychoactive effect by any means in a user. The court noted that there was no evidence adduced at trial to the effect that 5F-ADB is a substance capable of inducing a psychoactive effect in a user and is not included in the definition by virtue of s9(2). As there was simply no evidence adduced by the prosecution that 5F-ADB is a substance falling within the definition in the Act it followed that each of the five charges laid under the Act must be dismissed. The first defendant faced other charges of possession of cannabis, and failing to assist the constable with unlocking his cellphone when requested to do so under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. This defendant was found guilty on these charges and was to be sentenced at a later date. Judgment Date: 13 June 2018 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *