Diversion for Drug Possession
This is a case study on a sentence of diversion for drug possession.
Our client was charged with Possess Drug of Dependence. He was 21 years old and had an unrelated prior for driving suspended. Given his young age, he was very concerned that a criminal record in relation to drugs would prevent him from future overseas travel.
Dee Giannopoulos acted on the client’s behalf at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The charges were:
The charging officer was persuaded to recommend our client for diversion. But when the matter initially proceeded before the court, we were faced with a magistrate who was adverse to diversion as our client already had a criminal record.
The matter was booked in for a diversion hearing. The diversion paperwork was prepared with guidance from our solicitor and this was provided to the court along with written submissions.
The written submissions addressed the fact that the law does not state that diversion must only be for a first offence. It was also submitted that the drug possession was an offending dissimilar to the driving charge for which our client had previously been to court. We further explained that there are countries such as America which will not allow our client entry if there is a criminal history relating to any sort of drug charge, whereas the driving matter would not cause him that same issue.
The magistrate understood the position put and granted the diversion for drug possession and the rest of the charges. Our client complied with the conditions of the diversion and has no disclosable court record for this matter. This is very important considering he is 21 years of age and has his whole life ahead of him.
Dee Giannopoulos
Dee is based in our Melbourne office and appears at all Courts in Victoria. Dee’s commitment to her clients and her passion for justice drives her to achieve great results.
Visit Dee’s profile to read more about her background and experience.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 29/05/2018
