Prosecutors alleged that the two accused had knowingly possessed the cigarettes with the intention of evading excise duty, import duty and VAT. He contacted the co-accused to come to the scene, while both men consistently denied ownership of the cigarettes. In its judgment, the court found that although both men had access to the garage, the prosecution had failed to establish that the cigarettes were actually in their possession or under their control. The court stressed that merely having access to premises where illegal goods are found does not automatically amount to possession. Finding that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof in the criminal proceedings, the court acquitted both men of all charges.