The Court: Melbourne Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: David Dribbin
The Charges:
- Possessing a Marketable Quantity of Heroin
The Allegations:
This was an interstate prosecution run by the Commonwealth.
The client was a drug mule who was new to the country and had been asked to drive from Sydney to Melbourne to pick up a parcel. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) had already intercepted the parcel that was to be picked up and replaced the drugs in the parcel with a fake substance.
The client drove to the pickup location in Melbourne, and when he attempted to pick up the parcel, the AFP swooped in and arrested the client.
The client was taken to the nearest police station, where police attempted to conduct a recorded interview. During the recorded interview, despite the client’s broken English, the police opted not to wait until an interpreter could be present during the interview to assist, instead relying on the client’s own assertion that he was happy to proceed without an interpreter.
At Court:
Following the record of interview, the client was subsequently charged with Attempt to Possess a Marketable Quantity of Heroin under section 307.6 of the Criminal Code Act 1996 (Cth), which is a commonwealth offence. This offence is indictable, so it proceeded in the committal stream.
During the committal it was accepted by the informant (the police officer who charged the client) that the client had a limited grasp of the English language and that there was no evidence in the brief to establish that the client knew he was picking up drugs or that he knew that there was any potential for those drugs to be sold. The language barrier cast doubt on the admissibility of the record of interview.
The Outcome:
Our solicitor submitted that due to our client’s limited proficiency in English, the client would have been unaware of the contents of the package and did not fully understand the questions in the recorded interview. As to whether the client knew what he was doing, the prosecutor contended that there was enough evidence to leave the question of guilt open to a jury. The Magistrate disagreed and struck the matter out. The client walked free that day.
This was a remarkable outcome, as the client would have faced a significant prison sentence if he had been found guilty of the charge.
