58 In this case, there was no argument that the appellant did not have possession of the cocaine during the whole period alleged - his possession being the relevant act - and that the removal took place during that possession. (As we have said, however, as a matter of law conviction on the manufacturing charge was not open.) Had the evidence established, however, that the appellant had indeed manufactured cocaine in the unit (in the sense we have discussed), and thereby come into possession of it, then the possession of the drug so produced might well be regarded as part and parcel of the manufacture. By the same token, whilst the cocaine was in his possession, had he transported the cocaine with the intention of selling it, or simply possessed it with the intention of selling it,[40] he might have fallen to be convicted of trafficking a controlled substance,[41] but not both trafficking and possession (particularly where the prosecution seeks to rely on a presumption as to intention based on possession of a particular quantity of the drug).[42] Indeed, in the sphere of illicit drugs, there have been a number of cases where convictions for possession offences have been struck down where the fact of the possession has been