Men Plead Not Guilty To Ganja Possession, Consumption & Supply Allegations. Case Shows How Drones Were Used In Police Operation To Detect Activity Of Suspects.

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Alric Lindsay

Yesterday, July 15, 2025, Kirk McNeal Ferguson and Damion Ainsley Livingston appeared in the Summary Court to face allegations of ganja possession, consumption, and supply. The men pleaded not guilty to the charges. They will return to court on July 24, 2025, for a case management hearing.

Background

Regarding the background, it was explained in court that the police conducted an operation involving drones, during which Ferguson and Livingston were reportedly seen “interacting with various packets.”

Concerning Ferguson’s intent to supply charges, it was alleged that on April 19, 2024, he had in his possession 4.08 grams (0.14 ounces) of Ganja on School Road, with intent to supply it to another person.

Second, it was alleged that he had 1.45 grams (0.05 ounces) in the same location with the intent to supply to another.

Third, it was alleged that in the same location, he had 24.04 grams (0.85 ounces) with the intent to supply to another.

Turning to Ferguson’s possession charges, it was alleged that, in the same location, he possessed 4.08 grams (0.14 ounces).

Next, it was alleged that, on or before April 19, 2024, Ferguson consumed ganja.

Regarding Livingston’s intent to supply charge, it was alleged that on the same date, he possessed 116.12 grams (4.10 ounces) with the intent to supply it to another person.

He was also charged separately for possession only.

Finally, Livingston was charged with being concerned in the supply of 1.45 grams (0.05 ounces) of ganja.

Mix up with one charge

During the discussion of the allegations in court against Ferguson, issues were raised about the accuracy of a charge presented by Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. For example, it was noted that one allegation was labelled as “consumption,” however, that allegation also mentioned “possession” in the description. DPP Crown Counsel explained that “there appears to have been some issue with the copy and pasting” of the charges. It is understood that the relevant charge will be amended after defence counsel Oliver Grimwood described the drafting of the charge as “messy.”