The Court: Melbourne Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Kieran Burke
The Charges:
- Trafficking a Drug of Dependence
- Possessing a Drug of Dependence
- Using a Drug of Dependence
- Possess Prohibited Weapon
- Possess Property Suspected of Being Proceeds of Crime
The Allegations:
There were three suspects in a car driving in the Melbourne CBD. Police intercepted the car, and the owner permitted police to search the vehicle. During the search, the police found two bags containing a total of 12 grams of what was alleged to be methamphetamine, a knife, $1,800 in cash, bags and scales.
Our solicitor acted for two of the co-accused. Usually, we would not act for both co-accused as this can create a conflict of interest. In this case, though, the client’s instructions were identical. Both Client One and Client Two participated in a recorded interview with the police. In their recorded interviews, Client One denied the trafficking charge but admitted possession of the drugs. Client Two denied all allegations except using methamphetamine. Client One said the drugs were his, and Client Two said the bags the drugs were found in belonged to Client One, so their stories aligned.
At Court:
A major challenge was related to Client One and trafficking. The prima facie quantity in relation to trafficking methamphetamine is three grams. This means that, without any evidence to the contrary, a Magistrate could convict the accused based on possession of the weight alone. However, the presence of a traffickable quantity of drugs is not, on its own, enough to convict. The Magistrate must still be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the possession was for trafficking purposes. The presence of bags and scales in the car was certainly not helpful to the case.
Following a detailed written submission to the prosecution focusing on the lack of direct evidence to indicate trafficking (no surveillance, phone records, text messages or admissions by any co-accused), we offered to plead guilty to all Client One’s charges except the trafficking charge.
Given that Client One was taking responsibility, we asked that all of Client Two’s charges be withdrawn except the Use a Drug of Dependence charge, which he had admitted to in his recorded interview. We asked the informant to consider a Diversion recommendation for Client Two for the Use of methamphetamine charge. The prosecutor agreed, and a diversion notice was filed with the court.
Client One instructed our solicitor to enter a guilty plea to all charges except for the Trafficking charge, which the prosecutor withdrew.
The Outcome:
When the matter came to court, Client One received a $2,000 fine without conviction, while Client Two was granted a Diversion.
Considering the quantity of the drugs found, this was an amazing outcome for Client One. It also meant he was able to keep his record clean as the conviction was automatically spent. The result was a culmination of good preparation and advocacy.
