This is a case study on weapons and drugs offences resulting in a fine.
What is alleged to have occured?
Our client was found by Police sleeping in a vehicle on the side of the road. The Police attempted to wake him and he seemed groggy and slow to respond. They saw a prescription medication on the dashboard which ultimately was not in our client’s name.
The Police searched the vehicle under reasonable suspicions of drugs being located. During the search, they found various weapons and equipment used for the commission of burglaries (such as lock picks, screwdrivers and graphite).
Our client was charged with various offences:
We represented the client at the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court.
The matter was taken to contest mention and we were able to successfully negotiate the withdrawal of all charges with the exception of possession of the prescription medication and a single extendable magnetic tool which, at law, amounted to a controlled weapon. The balance of the charges were withdrawn and struck out.
This was possible because the informant did not undertake the relevant investigation which would have uncovered the fact that the vehicle did not belong to him and had been dropped off that night for our client to use the next day.
The client had an argument with his wife earlier in the night and had driven the car one block away from where they were living to cool off and eventually fell asleep.
Other than the prescription medication and the one tool which was in plain sight, the rest of the weapons and tools were secreted in the vehicle without his knowledge. We were able to successfully argue that the Police could not prove knowledge of those items being in the vehicle and have all those charges withdrawn.
What was the result?
Instead of facing serious weapons charges (and risk the inference being drawn that the balance of the tools were for the purpose of scooping out possible burglaries), our client was simply fined for possession of the drugs which he had admitted were not his and he used to finally get some sleep after the argument.
What is alleged to have occured?
Our client was found by Police sleeping in a vehicle on the side of the road. The Police attempted to wake him and he seemed groggy and slow to respond. They saw a prescription medication on the dashboard which ultimately was not in our client’s name.
The Police searched the vehicle under reasonable suspicions of drugs being located. During the search, they found various weapons and equipment used for the commission of burglaries (such as lock picks, screwdrivers and graphite).
Our client was charged with various offences:
- Possess drug of dependence
- Theft
- Going equipped to steal
- Possess housebreaking implements
- Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime
- Possess prohibited weapon
We represented the client at the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court.
The matter was taken to contest mention and we were able to successfully negotiate the withdrawal of all charges with the exception of possession of the prescription medication and a single extendable magnetic tool which, at law, amounted to a controlled weapon. The balance of the charges were withdrawn and struck out.
This was possible because the informant did not undertake the relevant investigation which would have uncovered the fact that the vehicle did not belong to him and had been dropped off that night for our client to use the next day.
The client had an argument with his wife earlier in the night and had driven the car one block away from where they were living to cool off and eventually fell asleep.
Other than the prescription medication and the one tool which was in plain sight, the rest of the weapons and tools were secreted in the vehicle without his knowledge. We were able to successfully argue that the Police could not prove knowledge of those items being in the vehicle and have all those charges withdrawn.
What was the result?
Instead of facing serious weapons charges (and risk the inference being drawn that the balance of the tools were for the purpose of scooping out possible burglaries), our client was simply fined for possession of the drugs which he had admitted were not his and he used to finally get some sleep after the argument.
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 25/02/2013
