Specialist Drug Lawyers
Defending Drug Cases is All We Do
Experienced in Drug Cases
Thousands of Satisfied Clients
Outstanding Track Record
Exceptional Results in Drug Cases
Defending Drug Cases is All We Do
Thousands of Satisfied Clients
Exceptional Results in Drug Cases
In Downing Centre District Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a ‘Section 10’ (no conviction) for a 22 year old Carramar man who pleaded ‘guilty’ to possessing 7 ecstacy tablets at Sydney’s ‘Future Music Festival’.
The Presiding Judge was persuaded to allow the man to remain ‘conviction free’ as any conviction may have resulted in him losing his job.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® convinced the Presiding Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court not to record a conviction against a 33 year old St Leonards man who pleaded ‘guilty’ to possessing 5 ecstacy pills, despite him already having a ‘Section 10’ in 2004 and a criminal conviction in 2006.
Our client attended counselling, wrote a ‘letter of apology’ and obtained references in the lead-up to his case, and submissions were made to the Magistrate about the effect of a ‘drug conviction’ on his job prospects.
After convincing the DPP to drop charges of ‘drug supply’ and ‘good in custody’, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a ‘Section 10’ (no criminal conviction) for our 20 year old Artarmon client who then pleaded guilty to a single charge of ‘possessing’ an indictable quantity of ecstacy tablets.
He is studying Civil Engineering and a criminal record may have impacted upon his future job prospects.
Drug Supply & Drug Possession charges were Dismissed in Downing Centre Court after the Magistrate found there was insufficient evidence to prove that our 22 year old client supplied or possessed drugs.
Police officers gave evidence in court that they were certain our client threw 2 bags of cocaine into a bush as they approached him with a sniffer dog.
Our client denied the allegation and the Magistrate found that another person may have possessed and discarded the drugs.
After having a charge of ‘deemed supply’ withdrawn, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained ‘Section 10s’ (no convictions) for our 51 year old client who then pleaded guilty in Downing Centre Local Court to possessing 12 ‘Ecstacy’ Tablets and a quantity of Ketamine.
Our client had no previous criminal convictions.
No conviction was imposed upon our 23 year old Clovelly client for possessing 4 tablets of ‘Ecstacy’ and 9 tablets of ‘Amphetamines’.
He was initially charged with ‘drug supply’ due to the number of pills, but Sydney Criminal Lawyers® had the supply charge withdrawn and replaced with ‘possession’ charges.
He then pleaded ‘guilty’ to possession and was dealt with under ‘section 10’ (no criminal conviction).
He is undertaking the final year of his law degree and had completed the MERIT Drug Program in the lead-up to his sentencing.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained ‘suspended sentences’ in Downing Centre District Court for our 27 year client who was caught under surveillance supplying 1000 ecstasy tablets and 79 grams of ‘ice’, and pleaded guilty.
The exceptional result was achieved by initially convincing the court to grant a lengthy adjournment – which is called a ‘section 11 bond’.
This allowed our client to complete 9 months of rehabilitation at Odyssey House.
He then started teaching others at that rehabilitation centre and continued his outpatient treatment.
Our client has come a very long way towards overcoming his underlying drug addiction and intends to eventually start his own landscaping business.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained bail in Central Local Court for a 26 year old man charged with having 4.75kg of imported Cocaine, which is an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a ‘presumption against bail’.
In Parramatta District Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® had all charges dismissed against a 26 year old man accused of supplying ‘ice’ and ‘ecstacy’ on an ‘ongoing basis’.
This result was obtained despite there being police surveillance and telephone intercepts allegedly establishing that our client supplied the drugs on at least 12 occasions over nearly 6 weeks.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a ‘Section 10’ (ie no criminal conviction) for a 30 year old man after persuading police to reduce a charge of ‘supply prohibited drug’ to ‘possess prohibited drug’ and then convincing the Magistrate that a criminal conviction would impact negatively on his employment prospects.
In Parramatta Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® had all drug charges dismissed for a 26 year old man found with ‘ecstacy tablets’ and ‘ice’ in his bedroom draw, on the basis that police could not prove ‘exclusive possession’.
Police were then ordered to pay our client’s legal costs because they failed to properly investigate the possibility that the drugs may have belonged to his girlfriend, who was staying in the same room at the time.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® had all drug supply and possession charges dismissed in Downing Centre Court by arguing that the police search of our client’s car was illegal.
Our client was driving his vehicle in Ultimo when police pulled him over for a random breath test.
Police claimed that while approaching the car, they observed our client lean over in a manner consistent with placing an item underneath the passenger seat.
They asked him “what did you just put under the seat” to which he replied “nothing”. Police administered a breath test which came back negative.
Police then advised they suspected our client of being in possession of drugs. They searched the car and located a small resealable bag containing 12 ‘ecstacy’ pills under the passenger seat.
They charged him with drug supply (deemed) due to the number of pills found and also with drug possession.
During the hearing, it was argued that simply observing a person lean over is insufficient by itself for police to form a reasonable suspicion in order to search the car. Indeed under cross examination during a voire dire (a hearing within a hearing), the officers admitted not being able to see any item in our client’s hand but simply seeing him momentarily lean over. It was also established the officers could not have had a clear view of this from their position.
The magistrate accepted that argument and found the ensuing search was illegal. She applied section 138 of the Evidence Act to exclude the evidence of drugs found after the search, and dismissed both charges.
The case serves as a reminder that a ‘reasonable suspicion’ must be ‘more than a mere possibility’ and based upon solid grounds; as per the leading case of R v Rondo.
Our clients (two men and a woman) were travelling to the ConFest Festival in the ACT when their car was stopped and searched by police.
Police found 5.5g of liquid LSD, 1 sugar cube of LSD, 4 MDMA/ecstasy pills and 2 grams of cannabis after a drug detection dog alerted them to the presence of drugs within the vehicle.
When questioned by police, our clients said that the drugs were for personal use only. Consequently, two of our clients were charged with two counts of ‘drug possession’ for the LSD and MDMA, while the third was charged with ‘possession of cannabis.’
They were represented by another law firm in the Local Court, where they were convicted of all charges and received heavy fines.
Unhappy with this result, they then contacted Sydney Drug Lawyers and explained their case to Mitchell Cavanagh, one of our expert senior drug defence lawyers.
Mr Cavanagh lodged an appeal against their sentence in the District Court, arguing that it was too harsh. He subsequently obtained ‘section 10s’ for each of our clients – meaning that they did not receive convictions on their criminal records and avoided the heavy fines originally imposed by the Local Court.
Mr Cavanagh was able to obtain this outstanding result by presenting evidence in court to show that ‘section 10s’ are able to be awarded even in serious drug cases which involve large quantities of different drugs and numerous charges.
Thanks to Mr Cavanagh’s expert knowledge of drug law and his excellent advocacy skills, our clients were able to get on with their lives without worrying about the impact of a criminal record.
This case shows how valuable it can be to have a specialist drug lawyer on your side – our in-depth knowledge of drug law, coupled with our experience defending these types of cases allows us to obtain excellent results when other law firms are unable to do so.
Our client was a 24 year old woman who attended the Stereosonic Music Festival in Sydney. She was charged with two counts of ‘drug possession’ and one count of ‘drug supply’ after police allegedly saw her selling ecstasy pills at the festival.
After searching her, police found 16 ecstasy pills which weighed 5.44 grams in total, as well as a capsule containing amphetamines.
Due to the large quantity of drugs, the matter had to be heard in the District Court.
Despite the prosecution having a strong case for ‘actual supply,’ our expert criminal lawyers were able to persuade the prosecution to amend the facts so that she was charged with ‘deemed supply,’ which is a much less serious charge that carries lesser penalties.
Our client then pleaded guilty to one count of deemed supply.
Sydney Drug Lawyers then put our client in the best possible position before her sentencing date by helping her collect character references and encouraging her to attend counselling.
We then worked hard to persuade the court to deal with the matter by way of a ‘section 10,’ which meant that our client avoided having a conviction recorded on her criminal history and did not have to pay heavy fines.
Our client was then able to continue her job as a Project Analyst without worrying about how a criminal record could affect her job.
This was an excellent result given the seriousness of the charges and the large amount of drugs involved. Again, it demonstrates how valuable it is to have a specialist drug lawyer on your side who will ensure that you get the best possible result in your drug case.
Our client was a 42 year old man who was charged with drug supply.
Police alleged that he was part of a criminal syndicate that was involved in supplying heroin and ecstasy.
They began a surveillance operation in May 2013 and obtained evidence including phone intercepts and video surveillance which showed that our client sold drugs on behalf of others who were higher up in the syndicate.
Our client, along with two others allegedly involved in the syndicate, was charged with numerous drug offences including ‘drug supply’ for heroin.
Despite the strong evidence obtained by police and the seriousness of the charges, our expert defence team fought hard to have the charges dropped on the basis that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client committed the offences.
As the charges were dropped before the matter went to court, our client was also able to avoid the time and expense involved in a District Court trial.
He is now able to move on with his life without a conviction on his criminal record, which could have seriously impacted his ability to work and travel.
The other two persons who were charged with drug offences chose to be represented by another ‘general’ criminal law firm that was unable to have the charges dropped. As a result, they now face the stress and expense of a District Court trial.
This goes to show that the knowledge and experience of a specialist drug lawyer can make all the difference when it comes to getting an outstanding result in your drug case.
Our client was a 30 year old Italian male who was observed selling capsules at the AVICII concert in Centennial Parklands.
He was searched by police who found 73 capsules and pills believed to be ecstasy in separate bags, as well as $770 cash.
Police arrested him and charged him with ‘drug supply’ and ‘dealing with the proceeds of crime.’
However, the substances were later analysed and determined to be a legal drug known as ‘Lofton,’ rather than ecstasy.
Our senior defence team was able to fight to have the charges dropped even though the law says that you can still be charged with drug supply if the pills simply resemble drugs and are sold under the assumption that they are illegal drugs.
However, our specialist lawyers argued that there was not enough evidence to show that our client was selling the substances as illegal drugs.
As a result, the prosecution dropped the charges at an early stage, and our client was able to avoid a lengthy and costly trial, as well as heavy penalties.
This is yet another example of an excellent result obtained thanks to the hard work and in-depth knowledge of our specialist drug defence lawyers.
Our client was a 24 year old male who was approached by police in a nightclub after reports that he was selling ecstasy.
Police spoke to the man and asked whether he had any drugs on him, and he immediately showed them a small plastic bag containing 8 ecstasy pills.
As a result, he was charged with ‘drug possession’ and ‘deemed drug supply.’
‘Deemed supply’ is a unique charge that applies in situations where you have a certain amount of drugs upon you and it is automatically presumed that you intended to sell them.
You can be charged with ‘deemed supply’ even if there is no other evidence to suggest that you intended to sell the drugs to other people.
Despite the seriousness of these charges and the amount of drugs involved, our expert defence team was able to persuade the prosecution to drop the ‘deemed supply’ charge.
Our client then pleaded guilty to the ‘drug possession’ charge, however his senior defence lawyer, Mr Nedim, was able to obtain a section 10.
A ‘section 10’ is where you are found guilty of the charges but no conviction is recorded on your criminal record.
Sometimes, having a criminal record can affect your ability to find a job or travel overseas. In this case, our client was studying accounting and was worried about how a criminal record would affect his ability to find a job after university.
Thanks to the effort and hard work of our expert defence lawyers, he is now able to move on with his life and pursue his chosen career path.
Again, this excellent result shows how you can benefit from the knowledge and experience of a specialist drug lawyer.
Our 29 year old client was pulled over by police, who alleged that he was speeding and driving recklessly.
When speaking to police, they claimed that he appeared nervous and fidgety and was sweating profusely.
Police then conducted a background check and found that our client had a previous drug conviction. On this basis, they searched his car and found 58 grams of cannabis. He was then charged with ‘drug possession’.
However, our expert defence team argued that having a previous drug conviction is not enough to justify a search, and that our client’s nervousness was normal in the circumstances.
The Magistrate accepted these arguments and found that the police had searched our client’s car illegally. The evidence of drugs was then able to be excluded on this basis and the case was dismissed.
This shows how valuable it can be to have a specialist drug defence lawyer on your side with an expert knowledge and understanding of drug law.
Our client was a 37 year old male who was charged with a variety of offences, including ‘cultivating a prohibited plant for commercial purposes‘ for growing 14 large cannabis plants in his Camperdown apartment.
He came to us after two other law firms told him that he would likely face 15 months to 2 years in prison.
He was also told that due to the seriousness of the charges, he would not be able to participate in the MERIT program, and the matter would have to be dealt with in the District Court.
However, with the help of the experts at Sydney Drug Lawyers, he was able to have the charges downgraded to ‘cultivation’ and ‘possession’ for personal purposes only. This meant that the case stayed in the Local Court, where the penalties are much lower.
Our client was also able to undertake the MERIT Program and ended up with a section 9 good behaviour bond, as well as a number of small fines – a great result considering other law firms had advised him that he was facing gaol time.
The specialist drug lawyers at Sydney Drug Lawyers frequently obtain excellent results in complex cases where other lawyers have given up hope.
Our 27 year old client was charged with commercial drug supply after being caught on surveillance supplying 1000 ecstasy pills and 79 grams of ice.
He pleaded guilty to the charges, however our expert defence lawyers were able to persuade the court to issue him with a ‘section 11 bond.’
A section 11 bond allows the matter to be adjourned to allow you to complete rehabilitation. The court will then determine your sentence after you finish the rehabilitation or intervention program.
Our client used this time to undergo a 9 month rehabilitation program at Odyssey House. During this time, he made significant progress in addressing his drug problems and eventually began teaching other people at the rehabilitation centre.
When it came to sentencing, our expert defence lawyers highlighted his outstanding efforts in rehabilitation and fought hard to obtain a suspended sentence for his offences.
This is a fantastic result given the serious nature of the charges. Thanks to the efforts of our senior defence team, our client has been able to continue his outpatient treatment and plans to start his own landscaping business.
Our 20 year old client was charged with two counts of ‘drug supply’ and one count of ‘drug possession.’
Our experienced criminal lawyers worked tirelessly to get the drug supply charges dropped outside of court. We then fought hard to obtain a ‘section 10’ for the drug possession charge.
A ‘section 10’ is where you are found guilty of the charge, but no conviction is recorded on your criminal record. This is a best-case scenario outcome, as a criminal record can make it difficult to find work or travel overseas.
The experts at Sydney Drug Lawyers are frequently successful in obtaining ‘section 10s,’ even in more serious drug cases such as ‘drug supply.’
Because of this excellent result, our client is now able to move on with her life and pursue her career as a social worker.
Our 22 year old client came to us worried about the prospect of going to gaol after he was charged with supplying 60 ounces of heroin and cocaine over a period of several months.
He was charged with multiple offences including ‘supply drugs on an ongoing basis,’ ‘participate in criminal group’ and 11 counts of ‘supply prohibited drug.’
These offences are treated seriously by the courts and generally result in a prison sentence – indeed, our client had fully expected to go to gaol.
However, our highly-experienced principal, Ugur Nedim, was able to put forth compelling arguments which persuaded the Judge to deal with the matter by way of a suspended sentence.
A suspended sentence is an alternative to full-time gaol. It is a good behaviour bond which enables you to go about your daily life provided that you stick to the terms and conditions of the bond.
This meant that our client did not end up in prison, despite the fact that he had prior convictions – an outstanding result considering statistics for these offences showed that 100% of offenders went to prison.
Our client was a 23 year old male who was in his final year of law school.
He was caught with 4 pills containing ecstasy and 9 pills containing amphetamines.
Due to the large number of pills, our client was charged with ‘drug supply.’ However, our lawyers fought to have the supply charge reduced to a ‘drug possession’ charge, which carries much lesser penalties.
Our lawyers then encouraged him to participate in the MERIT Drug Program prior to his sentencing, which he completed with great success.
When it came to his sentencing, our expert lawyers highlighted his outstanding participation in the MERIT Program as well as his prior good character, and were able to obtain a ‘section 10.’
This meant that no convictions were recorded on his criminal record, and he was able to pursue his career as a lawyer.
Again, it just goes to show that having a specialist drug lawyer on your side can give you the best possible advantage when it comes to fighting the charges.
Our client was a 51 year old male who was charged with ‘deemed supply’ after he was found with 12 ecstasy pills and a quantity of ketamine.
Our skilled lawyers worked hard to have his deemed supply charge downgraded to ‘drug possession.’
Our lawyers were able to obtain a ‘section 10’ by drawing attention to his clean criminal record and his prior good character.
This shows how valuable a specialist drug lawyer can be when it comes to securing a positive outcome in your drug case.
Police charged our 22 year old client with ‘drug supply’ and ‘drug possession.’
They alleged that he threw 2 bags of cocaine into the bushes when he was approached by police and a sniffer dog.
Our client pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charges, and with the help of our experienced criminal defence team, he was able to convince the Magistrate that someone else may have thrown the drugs into the bushes.
As a result, all charges were dismissed and our client was found ‘not guilty.’
This excellent result was obtained because of the expert knowledge and skills of our highly experienced specialist drug lawyers.
Our 20 year old client was charged with ‘drug supply’ and ‘goods in custody.’
However, thanks to the hard work of our specialist drug lawyers, we were able to convince the DPP to drop these charges.
Instead, our client pleaded guilty to a single count of ‘possessing an indictable quantity of ecstasy pills.’
Our lawyers then fought hard to present his case in the most positive light, and were able to secure a ‘section 10,’ which is where you are found guilty but no conviction is recorded on your criminal history.
This meant that our client was free to pursue his career as an engineer – ordinarily, had a conviction been recorded, he may have faced difficulties in applying for jobs.
This is yet another wonderful result obtained thanks to the skills of our highly-respected drug lawyers.
Our client was a 33 year old male who was charged with ‘drug possession’ after he was found with 5 ecstasy pills.
He had previously had a criminal conviction in 2006, as well as a ‘section 10’ in 2004.
Our expert defence team encouraged our client to attend counseling, write a letter of apology, and obtain character references from his employer.
At sentencing, our expert lawyers drew attention to the positive steps our client had taken in getting counselling and demonstrating remorse in his letter of apology.
We also highlighted the impact that a drug conviction would have on his career and future.
Thanks to these compelling arguments, our lawyers were able to convince the Magistrate to issue a ‘section 10,’ which is where no conviction is recorded.
This was a fantastic result, especially since our client had a previous criminal record and had already obtained a section 10 in the past.
Our 26 year old male client was charged with ‘drug possession’ after police found ecstasy pills and ice in his bedroom drawer.
However, our highly experienced lawyers argued that there was a possibility that the drugs belonged to our client’s girlfriend.
Accordingly, police were unable to prove ‘exclusive possession’ – in other words, the police were unable to prove that the drugs belonged only to our client.
We were also able to get the police to pay for our client’s legal fees as they should have investigated the possibility that the drugs belonged to our client’s girlfriend.
This was a great outcome as our client escaped conviction and was able to get on with his life without having to worry about paying for his legal expenses.
It just goes to show that sometimes, having a knowledgeable specialist drug lawyer on your side pays for itself!
Our 30 year old client was charged with supplying a prohibited drug.
Our lawyers were able to convince police to downgrade this to a ‘drug possession’ charge, to which our client pleaded guilty.
Our highly-experienced advocates then stressed the negative impact that a conviction would have upon our client’s employment prospects, and accordingly the Magistrate was persuaded to issue a ‘section 10.’
This meant that our client did not receive a conviction on his criminal record and was free to pursue his chosen career.
Our client benefited from the experience of our specialist drug defence team, and was able to obtain the best possible result in his case.
Our 26 year old client was charged with supplying ice and ecstasy on an ongoing basis.
Prosecution evidence against our client was strong and included police surveillance of our client as well as telephone intercepts which allegedly showed that our client supplied drugs.
However, our dedicated and experienced lawyers were able to convince the District Court Judge to dismiss all charges – meaning that our client was found ‘not guilty.’
He is now able to get on with his life without being marred by a criminal conviction.
Our 26 year old client was charged with possessing 4.75kg of imported cocaine.
The large amount of this drug attracts extremely heavy penalties, including life imprisonment.
Our client also had a prior conviction for drug supply in the USA and was not an Australian citizen, nor did he have links to the Australian community.
Despite these unfavourable circumstances, the specialist defence team from Sydney Drug Lawyers was able to get our client bail.
This was a fantastic result given the seriousness of the charges and shows that it pays to have the experts on your side.
Our expert drug lawyers recently represented a client who was charged with driving under the influence of a prohibited drug (DUI).
He was pulled over by police after it was alleged that he was veering between lanes without indicating.
Police then alleged that they smelt cannabis inside the vehicle when speaking to our client.
When asked about the smell, our client admitted that he had smoked cannabis prior to being pulled over by police.
He also handed over a joint that was inside the car.
Police conveyed out client to hospital where blood and urine samples were taken from him. The samples revealed that our client had high concentrations of THC in his blood and urine.
In court, our highly experienced drug lawyers argued that our client suffered from various medical problems, such as severe hernia pain.
It was argued that if his licence were disqualified, our client would be unable to attend medical appointments, and further, catching public transport would be difficult due to the severity of the pain suffered.
Our lawyers also argued that our client used cannabis as a form of pain relief, rather than for recreational purposes.
Despite the strength of the case against our client, as well as his lengthy driving record, our drug law specialists were able to persuade the magistrate to impose a ‘section 10.’
This means that while our client was found guilty of the offence, the charges will be not recorded on his criminal record.
It also means that he avoids having his licence disqualified.
This fantastic outcome means that our client is able to continue working and travelling without the charges severely impacting his life.
Our drug lawyers regularly represent clients in DUI cases and have a proven track record of obtaining excellent results such as ‘section 10s.’
The annual Harbourlife Music Festival was held on the 8th of November this year.
Three of our clients were charged with drug possession after police found various types of drugs upon them, including 7 ecstasy pills, marijuana, cocaine and ice.
Thankfully, our highly experienced senior drug lawyers took the time to carefully prepare ‘sentencing submissions’ which emphasised the need for a lenient penalty.
As a result of the hard work and dedication of our expert lawyers, all of our clients walked away with ‘section 10s.’
A ‘section 10’ is where you are found guilty of an offence, but no conviction is recorded on your criminal record.
This means that each of our clients is able to get on with their lives without worrying about how a criminal conviction could affect their employment or travel plans.
Our lawyers frequently obtain ‘section 10s’ in drug possession and supply cases.
These phenomenal results highlight the value of having an experienced drug law specialist on your side.
Our drug law specialists recently represented a 26-year-old Columbian man who was alleged to have imported 63 kilograms of methamphetamine into Australia from South America.
He was charged with commercial drug importation under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment.
Despite a strong prosecution case and the seriousness of the charges, our experienced drug lawyers were able to persuade the magistrate to grant our client bail.
This means that our client is able to remain at liberty in the community until his matter is heard in court.
We were able to achieve this desirable outcome thanks to the efforts of our dedicated drug law experts, who spent a considerable amount of time preparing written submissions to the court which emphasised factors such as delays with the prosecution serving evidence, the length of time that our client would spend in prison before his trial, and his need to be free to assist in preparing his case.
This fantastic result means that our lawyers can now work with our clients to secure the best possible outcome in his case.
There have been significant amendments to the Bail Act in recent times, and it certainly pays to have a lawyer on your side who is familiar with these changes.
Our senior lawyers regularly prepare bail applications in the Local, District and Supreme courts and have an expert understanding of bail laws.
Our expert knowledge and experience is reflected in our ability to obtain bail for our clients in even the most serious drug cases, such as this one.
Our expert defence team recently represented nine clients who were charged with drug possession at Stereosonic 2014.
Our clients came from all walks of life and held jobs in various fields.
Three of them were also students.
Each of our clients had been caught with between 2 and 9 ecstasy pills.
One of those clients received two drug possession charges as he was caught with 7 ecstasy pills and a little over 1 gram of cocaine.
All of our clients wished to plead guilty and our expert drug defence lawyers represented them at each court date, as well as the final sentencing hearing.
As always, our lawyers spent considerable amounts of time working on each case and preparing compelling sentencing submissions which emphasised the need for a lenient penalty.
Despite the fact that some of our clients were caught with numerous pills, our outstanding advocates were able to persuade the magistrate in Burwood Local Court to impose section 10s in every case.
This means that while the court accepted their guilty pleas, the offence was not recorded on their criminal records.
Our clients therefore avoided the negative consequences which can flow from having a criminal record.
In Campbelltown Local Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® successfully obtained bail for a 23 year old ‘repeat offender’ who was advised by his former solicitors and barrister that he had no chance of getting bail.
The man has several previous convictions for robbery, larceny, drugs and break & enter offences.
Most significantly, he was already on strict conditional bail including a night-time curfew for ‘aggravated break, enter & steal’ at the time of his present charges.
His present charges involve him allegedly ‘break & entering’ a home, stealing credit cards and using those cards shortly thereafter to make purchases at 2 nearby petrol stations and a convenience store, at a time when he was supposed to be home for his curfew.
According to the police ‘facts’, his use of the stolen cards is captured on CCTV footage and he had was in possession of receipts from the purchases when arrested.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained bail despite all of those factors.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained ‘Suspended Sentences’ (no prison) in Downing Centre District Court for our 22 year old client for ‘Supply Drug on Ongoing Basis’, 11 charges of ‘Supply Prohibited Drug’ and ‘Participate in Criminal Group’.
The case involved the supply of approximately 60 ounces of heroin and cocaine over several months.
Our Ugur Nedim persuasively presented the case before the Downing Centre District Court Judge who ultimately found exceptional circumstances in our client’s favour and refrained from sending him to prison.
All involved had expected a lengthy prison sentence.
It is an incredible result considering that our client has several previous criminal convictions, and the official sentencing statistics for similar offenders say that 100% were sent to prison.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® convinced the DPP to withdraw two charges of ‘drug supply’ against our 20 year old Menai client, then obtained a ‘section 10 dismissal’ in Downing Centre Local Court for the remaining charge of ‘drug possession’.
This means that our client has no criminal convictions and is free to pursue her chosen career as a social worker without having to disclose a drug conviction.
The Presiding Magistrate in Hornsby Local Court dismissed drug possession charges against our 21 year old client from Wahroonga who was stopped and searched in a Pennant Hills carpark.
Police approached our client claiming he appeared to be ‘acting suspiciously’ by standing outside his car with a friend in an unlit area.
As usual, police alleged that our client appeared ‘nervous’ and ‘agitated’ and that he could not adequately explain why he was there.
They searched him and found 4 ecstacy tablets and a small amount of cannabis in resealable bags in his pocket.
The Magistrate found that this was not enough to ground a ‘suspicion on reasonable grounds’ and ruled the search to be illegal.
The evidence was then excluded and both charges were dismissed.
The Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court dismissed the case against our 30 year old client who was charged with ‘resisting officer in execution of duty’.
Police arrested our client in Woolloomoolloo when they suspected him of possessing drugs.
Our client ‘violently resisted’ and was thrown to the footpath head-first, sustaining bruising to the face.
He was held face-down by police ‘for at least 2 minutes’.
The Magistrate found our client ‘not guilty’ and criticised police for acting ‘recklessly and outside their powers’.
Here are some recent examples of our criminal defence team getting charges dismissed due to mental health under ‘section 32:
The Magistrate in Ryde Local Court dismissed charges of larceny against our 37 year old client who was caught stealing a trolley-load of goods from Myer. The case was persuasively argued by Mr Nedim and the Magistrate stated ‘this is only the second section 32 that I have granted out of about 20 since I came to Ryde in April’.
Downing Centre Local Court dismissed charges of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Common Assault against our 24 year old client despite it being his second assault case within 2 years. He received a criminal conviction for his previous case after his lawyers failed to inform him that his mental condition could be used to have his case dismissed.
Parramatta Local Court dismissed drug possession charges against our 33 year old client who was caught with 9 ecstacy tablets in his pocket. He was initially charged with ‘supply’ but Sydney Criminal Lawyers® had that charge withdrawn. The court found that there was a link between our client’s underlying depression and his use of drugs, and that the proposed treatment plan was adequate.
Wagga Wagga Local Court dismissed a charge of ‘use carriage service to make hoax threat’ against our 45 year old client who contacted the NSW Fire Service advising that a bomb had been placed at a fire station. The court found a significant link between our client’s post traumatic stress and his actions.
Our Senior Criminal Lawyers persuasively argued each of the cases in court.
Our 37 year old client was initially charged with ‘strictly indictable’ offences of ‘cultivate by enhanced indoor means prohibited plant for commercial purpose’ for growing 14 large cannabis plants under 4 tents in his Camperdown apartment and with supplying ecstacy.
He was also charged with several other offences involving selling fake goods and possessing prescribed restricted substances.
He was told by 2 other Sydney criminal law firms that:
He then came to Sydney Criminal Lawyers® who fought and succeeded in:
It pays to have a confident and superior defence team on your side.
The Presiding Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court dismissed charges of ‘drug possession‘ against our 29 year old client after police searched his car illegally.
Our client was pulled over after he allegedly exceeded the speed limit and drove ‘recklessly’.
Police claimed that, when approached, he appeared ‘nervous’,’ fidgety’ and was ‘sweating profusely’.
Police then undertook a background check which showed that our client has a previous drug conviction.
His car was then searched and police found a plastic bag containing 58 grams of cannabis under the passenger seat.
The Magistrate accepted that our client’s nervousness was natural in the circumstances and that a previous drug conviction is not sufficient to justify a search.
The search was found to be illegal and the evidence of drugs was excluded.
The prosecution had no further evidence and the case was dismissed.
The Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court was persuaded to discharge our 24 year old client without recording a criminal conviction against him despite being found in possession of 8 tablets of MDMA (‘ecstacy’).
Police approached our client in a Sydney Night Club after receiving information that he was selling ‘ecstacy’ tablets to patrons.
They asked whether he was in possession of drugs and he immediately produced a small resealable plastic bag containing 8 pills.
He was arrested and charged with ‘drug supply’ and ‘drug possession’.
The ‘drug supply’ charge was based on the law about ‘deemed supply’ – which says that a person can be charged with drug supply simply because they possess more than the ‘trafficable quantity’ of drugs eg more than 0.75 grams of ecstacy.
Our defence team wrote a detailed letter to Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘DPP’) which resulted in the ‘supply’ charge being withdrawn.
Our client then pleaded guilty to ‘possession’ and our Mr Nedim convinced the Magistrate to allow him to remain ‘conviction-free’ on the basis that a criminal conviction could have impacted upon his ability to become an accountant after completing his university studies.
All charges were withdrawn and dismissed in Downing Centre Local Court for our 30 year old client from Italy after the analysis of the alleged prohibited drugs came back negative.
Police observed our client approaching several people and selling capsules to patrons at the ‘AVIICI’ concert at Centennial Parklands, Sydney.
They searched him and located 73 tablets and capsules resembling ‘ecstacy’ in 4 separate resealable bags. They also found $770 cash on him.
He was then charged with ‘supply prohibited drug‘ and ‘deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime’.
The substances were then analysed and found to be a legal drug known as ‘Lofton’.
It is important to note that the law says a person is guilty of drug supply even if they supply tablets that contain no drugs at all, as long as they sell them as if they were drugs.
Despite this, our defence team persuaded the prosecution to withdraw all charges on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to prove that our client was selling the substances as illegal drugs.
All drug charges have been dropped after our defence lawyers successfully argued that the prosecution evidence against our client was not strong enough to go to a jury trial.
Our client is a 42 year old man from Waterloo who was suspected of being part of a criminal syndicate that supplied drugs including heroin and ‘ecstacy’ from at least early 2013.
Police set up a surveillance operation in May 2013 that intercepted phone calls between our client and others allegedly involved in that syndicate.
Those intercepts allegedly established that our client was a ‘drug runner’ who sold drugs on behalf of those higher in the syndicate.
Video surveillance also allegedly captured him selling drugs on at least two occasions.
Our client and two other syndicate members were later arrested and charged with various drug offences – our client was charged with supplying heroin on 10th and 31st July 2013.
After several months of intense fighting, our Senior Criminal Defence Team was able to convince the prosecution that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges against our client beyond reasonable doubt.
All charges against him were then withdrawn.
The two ‘co-accused’ are represented by other criminal law firms who have not been able to have their clients’ cases dropped.
Those clients are now facing an expensive, lengthy and risky District Court trial unless they plead guilty to their charges.
In Downing Centre District Court, our 24 year old client from Rydalmere was given a ‘section 10 bond’ despite pleading guilty to supplying 16 ecstacy tablets and possessing amphetamines.
This means that she avoids a criminal conviction altogether.
She is a Project Analyst with a Sydney-based telecommunications company that contracts to various government organisations.
She attended the Stereosonic Music Festival, Olympic Park where police allegedly saw her selling tablets to other party-goers.
Police approached and saw her holding a condom containing what appeared to be tablets and capsules.
They immediately cautioned her, seized the pills and placed her under arrest.
She then made a range of admissions and was charged with one count of ‘drug supply‘ and two counts of ‘drug possession’.
The ecstacy (or ‘MDMA’) tablets weighed a total of 5.44 grams. A capsule of amphetamines was also found.
The quantity of drugs made it a ‘strictly indictable case’ which means that it had to go to the District Court.
It was a strong case of ‘actual supply’.
However, Sydney Drug Lawyers persuaded the prosecution to significantly amend the ‘facts’ and to treat the matter as a ‘deemed supply’ only, which meant that it was less-serious.
Our client then pleaded guilty to one charge of ‘deemed supply’.
She placed herself in the best possible position before her sentencing date by attending counselling and gathering character references.
A counselling letter was obtained and our defence team successfully persuaded the District Court Judge to keep her conviction-free.
This means that the incident is unlikely to affect our client’s current job or her future career prospects.
Two young men and one young woman who pleaded ‘guilty’ in Deniliquin Local Court to numerous charges of ‘drug possession’ have had their convictions overturned on appeal to Downing Centre District Court.
The charges arose after police applied for a Drug Dog Detection Warrant for the detection of drugs in cars travelling through NSW towards the Con/Fest Music Festival in the A.C.T.
Police pulled over our client’s car which contained two passengers, and the drug detection dog indicated the presence of drugs.
The driver agreed to a search and police located 5.5 grams of liquid LSD, one sugar cube of LSD, 4 MDMA (‘ecstacy’) tablets and 2 grams of cannabis.
All three occupants participated in police interviews and admitted that they possessed the drugs for personal use.
Two of them were charged with 2 counts of ‘drug possession‘ for the ecstacy and LSD. The third was additionally charged with cannabis possession.
All were later convicted of all charges in Deniliquin Local Court and given criminal convictions and fines.
Our firm did not represent them in the Local Court.
One of them later contacted our firm and we immediately lodged an appeal against the severity of his sentences.
The remaining two contacted our firm shortly thereafter and we also lodged appeals for them.
For strategic reasons, we arranged for all of the cases to be transferred to Downing Centre District Court.
Despite the number of different drugs and multiple charges, our Senior Criminal Lawyer Mitchell Cavanagh persuaded the Judge to overturn all of the convictions by ordering ‘section 10 good behaviour bonds’.
This means that all of our clients remain conviction-free. The fines were also overturned.
During the Appeal, Mr Cavanagh directed His Honour to a binding decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal which states that a court may deal with a person without conviction despite the presence of substantial quantities of drugs and numerous charges.
That decision also says that:
1. A ‘section 10’ (non-conviction) can even be awarded in cases of drug supply, including cases where there are 20 or more ecstacy tablets,
2. A good behaviour bond without conviction is a significant penalty in itself, and
3. Whether or not a conviction is recorded makes little difference to whether the penalty is adequate or inadequate.
Once again, our firm’s superior legal knowledge, thorough preparation and persuasive presentation has made a significant difference to result achieved.
Our 21 year old client was charged with drug supply after police observed him smoking crystal methylamphetamine (‘ice’) through a glass pipe in the driver seat of his car.
Police searched the car and located more ‘ice’ in a small resealable bag, 6 tablets of MDMA (‘ecstacy’), drug paraphernalia and a quantity of cash.
They charged him with drug supply due to the quantity of drugs found – this charge is also known as ‘deemed drug supply’.
Once again, our defence team wrote a detailed letter to police requesting withdrawal of the drug supply charges on the basis that our client pleads guilty to the less-serious charge of ‘drug possession’.
The request was successful and our client then pleaded guilty to drug possession.
Our client was represented in court by our senior lawyers who persuaded the Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court to award our client a ‘section 10’ which means that he avoids a criminal conviction altogether.
Our 26 year old client was charged with supplying 2.4 grams of cocaine, and a ‘backup’ charge of drug possession, after police located drugs and drug paraphernalia including electronic scales and resealable bags in a kitchen cupboard at his one-bedroom unit in Paddington.
Our client was the sole lessee of the unit, although his girlfriend also lived there and friends also attended for social gatherings.
The prosecution case failed because they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that our client ‘exclusively possessed’ the drugs, to the exclusion of all others.
In drug cases, police must prove ‘exclusive possession’- in other words, police must exclude any reasonable possibility that the drugs belonged to someone else.
In this case, our lawyers ensured that ample evidence came before the court that the drugs could have belonged to our client’s partner or any one of a number of people who recently attended the unit.
The Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court therefore found our client ‘not guilty’ and dismissed both of the charges.
The Harbourlife Music Festival on 8th November 2014 led to a large number of arrests for drug possession.
On 5th December, our Senior Lawyers each represented 3 clients who pleaded guilty to drug possession in Downing Centre Local Court.
Our clients were from a range of economic, cultural and employment backgrounds – including students, retail worker, tradespersons and professionals in upper management.
ALL of our clients escaped criminal records after our lawyers persuaded the Magistrate to grant them ‘section 10s’ – which means guilty but no criminal conviction.
They are free to get on with their lives without the complications of a criminal record.
Our client is a 26 year old Columbian national who, before his arrest, was in Australia on a student visa.
He is charged with importing 63 kilograms of methamphetamine from Mexico and Columbia into Australia, in contravention of section 307.1 of the Criminal Code Act.
The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
The shipment was detected through telephone intercepts and physical surveillance, and the drugs were intercepted by the AFP in Sydney and replaced with an innocuous substance that was found in the boot of a car in Burwood.
It is alleged that our client was involved in the importation and that the case against him is strong.
The Bail Act 2013 requires the court to consider a range of factors when deciding to release a person from custody.
Those factors include: the seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prosecution case, the person’s links to the community, the risk of not turning up to court, the risk of reoffending, the time they would spend in prison if not granted bail and the need to be free to prepare for their case.
Our client was in a difficult position due to the seriousness and alleged strength of the case, his minimal links to the community and the consequent risk of failing to attend court.
However, our defence team prepared detailed written submissions to the court focusing upon (1) prosecution delays in serving evidence, (2) the fact that he would be spending a significant amount of time behind bars awaiting trial, and (3) our need to have him free to assist in the preparation of his defence.
The prosecution strongly opposed bail, and prepared it’s own written submissions.
However, the Magistrate in Central Local Court ultimately acceded to our request and granted conditional bail to our client.
The next step will be for our experienced team to use our vast specialised experience in commercial drug cases to secure him the optimal outcome.
In Burwood Local Court, each of our Senior Lawyers represented 3 clients who were caught possessing drugs at the Stereosonic Music Festival.
Our clients were from various social, economic and cultural backgrounds and worked in a range of fields – from retail, to accountant, to company executive, to business owner.
Three of our clients were also students.
Most were caught for possessing MDMA tablets, also known as ‘ecstacy’ – ranging from 2 to 9 pills. One of our clients had two ‘drug possession’ charges against him for possessing 7 ecstacy tablets and just over 1 gram of cocaine.
All of our clients’ cases were thoroughly prepared and persuasively presented in court.
This resulted in the Magistrate allowing all of them to avoid criminal records by granting them ‘Section 10s’.
Section 10 means that, even though a person is guilty, a criminal conviction is not recorded against their name.
Our clients are free to get on with their lives without the burden of a criminal record.
In May 2013, our client pleaded guilty to Supplying a Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug and 3 counts of Possess Prohibited Drug.
He was given a two-year ‘Suspended Sentence’ and 3 x three-year ‘Section 9 Good Behaviour Bonds’ for those charges by the Presiding Judge in Downing Centre District Court. This was an excellent result given the seriousness of the charges.
However, in November 2014, he was found in possession of MDMA (‘ecstacy’) tablets and a quantity of cannabis, and charged with two counts of drug possession. Those charges caused him to breach his ‘Suspended Sentence’ and his ‘Good Behaviour Bonds’.
In the lead-up to his court proceedings, our legal team gathered material supporting the assertion that our client had taken significant steps towards rehabilitation, but had found it difficult at times and relapsed.
In the result, the Presiding Judge was persuaded that there were good reasons to excuse the breach of Suspended Sentence. The breach was therefore excused and our client was given a fresh two-year section 9 good behaviour bond.
He therefore avoids prison and can continue in his efforts towards rehabilitation.
Our 23 year old client has been granted conditional bail in Central Local Court after being charged with ‘supplying a large commercial quantity of prohibited drug’ and ‘knowingly participate in criminal group’.
Police conducted a controlled operation into the alleged production and supply of methylamphetamine originating out of a clandestine laboratory in Ryde, NSW.
Police used surveillance devices and physical monitoring to track the movement of substances from that location to other parts of Sydney.
Our client was arrested together with four other young men who were allegedly in possession of 2.4 kilograms of methylamphetamine.
It is additionally alleged that our client is captured on surveillance footage handling the packages within which the drugs were found.
All five defendants then came before the Presiding Magistrate in Central Local Court.
They all faced an uphill battle when it came to bail because ‘large commercial drug supply’ is one of the offences captured by the new “show cause” provisions of the Bail Act – which means that it is very difficult to obtain bail in such cases.
However, our senior lawyers made extensive verbal submissions which ultimately convinced the Magistrate to grant bail to our client.
All of the other four other defendants were refused bail.
It is just another example of how superior legal representation can make all the difference when it comes to your liberty.
Our client is a 58-year-old lady who owns a tobacconist store in the CBD.
Police had previously seized synthetic drugs from her store, and had received further reports that synthetic cannabis was still being sold.
They obtained a warrant to search the premises and were able to locate various forms of synthetic cannabis, with an estimated value of $10,000.
Our client was then charged with ‘deemed supply’, which means that she was alleged to have more than the ‘traffickable’ quantity of drugs in her possession for the purpose of supply. A ‘deemed supply’ charge can be brought even if there is no evidence that the person actually supplied any drugs.
The laws relating to the sale of synthetic cannabis were changing at the time, and the act of supplying synthetic cannabis had only become an offence 10 days before our client was charged.
Our lawyers were able to persuade the prosecution to drop the charges on that basis, meaning that our client is spared the expense, stress and anxiety of having to fight the case in court.
Our three clients are all Indonesian nationals who were crew members aboard a ship headed for Australia.
The ship’s cargo-hold was altered to increase its capacity, containing a speed boat and dozens of ‘Prada’ bags filled with a total of over 600 kilograms of heroin.
The ship anchored approximately two kilometres from Australian shores, and the speedboat was ferried back and forth unloading the heroin-filled bags onto the mainland.
Unknown to the ship’s captain and crew, Australian authorities had been monitoring the operation and ultimately arrested all on board the ship.
The captain and officers were all convicted at trial. They were represented by other lawyers.
Six crew members faced a separate trial, with our team representing three of the men in Downing Centre District Court.
We advised our clients not to give evidence after the close of the prosecution case at trial, as the state of the evidence was that knowledge or recklessness had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They were ultimately found ‘not guilty’ of all charges.
The remaining three crew members – represented by other lawyers – each testified in court. They were questioned at length and ultimately found guilty. In our view, it was a significant strategic error to have exposed the men to cross-examination, given the weaknesses in the evidence at the close of the prosecution case.
Our client is a 27-year-old apprentice plumber from Sydney.
Police observed him walking along a footpath with another person outside a popular annual music festival. As our client was adjusting his pants, a single brown pill fell out of his pocket onto the ground. Police saw this, approached and showed him identification. Our client then handed the pill to police, admitting it was ‘ecstacy’.
Police asked whether he had any other pills, and our client produced a bag containing another five ecstasy pills. Police then searched him and found another bag containing 6 more ecstasy pills. He made admissions to police that he was going to give some of the pills to his girlfriend and friends, which amounts to ‘drug supply’ under the law.
In total, our client was found with 12 ecstasy pills. As this is well above the ‘trafficable quantity’ of 0.75 grams – and the fact our client admitted intending to supply pills to others – our client was charged with ‘deemed supply’, which means he was taken to have the drugs upon him for the purpose of supply.
Our client pleaded guilty in the Local Court and, because the quantity was also above the ‘strictly indictable’ weight of 1.25 grams, the case proceeded to the District Court.
Our client told us he saw several criminal lawyers who each advised him that it was not possible to avoid a criminal conviction for a ‘deemed supply’ for so many ecstacy pills. In our view, that advice was contrary to several authorities in the NSWCCA and District Court which make it clear that higher courts can, and indeed have, exercised discretion under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 not to record a criminal conviction for the supply of several ecstacy tablets (see especially R v Mauger).
We assisted our client to prepare a range of favourable materials, including character references, a letter of apology and evidence that he may lose his job upon receiving a criminal record.
In the District Court, the prosecutor presented several cases which state that a prison sentence is appropriate in circumstances similar to that of our client.
In addition to the subjective materials, we presented cases to the contrary and argued at length that it was appropriate for the court to deal with our client by way of a section 10 good behaviour bond.
In the result, the Judge was persuaded to exercise her discretion and place our client on an 18-month bond without recording a criminal conviction against him.
He looks forward to continuing his career and establishing his own business in the future.
Our client is a 38-year-old teacher.
Police in plain clothes observed him stand up and exit a bar as they were entering the premises with a drug-detection dog.
Police decided to approach him, at which time our client immediately produced a small bag of cocaine and handed it over to them.
Police then arrested and issued him with a court attendance notice.
It wasn’t the first time our client was in trouble for drug possession.
He had two prior drug possession offences, and was placed each time on a ‘section 10’ good behaviour bond, without a criminal conviction.
He had been warned by the magistrate on the previous occasion that such leniency would not be extended to him on a third occasion.
Despite that warning, our lawyers ensured he was placed in the best possible position in court. We assisted him to prepare character references, a letter of apology and evidence he would likely lose the job he recently acquired if convicted.
Our client also made enquiries about participating in a drug rehabilitation program, and we produced evidence of his efforts to the court.
We then made extensive submissions before the court, and with some hesitation the magistrate was ultimately persuaded to deal with our client by placing him on a good behaviour bond without conviction once again.
Our client is a foreign national on a working holiday visa.
A few months into her stay in Australia, she decided to attend a music festival with a group of friends.
On the day of the festival, she was pressured to carry 14 MDMA (‘ecstacy’) tablets into the festival grounds.
The male members of the group, including her boyfriend at the time, felt that as a female she would come under the least suspicion from security and police, who were checking for illegal drugs at the festival entry.
A sniffer dog gave a positive indication and our client quickly admitted to possessing the tablets.
She was then arrested and charged with ‘drug supply’ due to the number of tablets found. In that regard, the law provides that a person found with more than the ‘trafficable quantity’ of drugs can be charged with supply. This is known as ‘deemed supply’. The trafficable quantity of MDMA is just 0.75 grams.
If a person is charged with deemed supply, the onus of proof then shifts to them to prove ‘on the balance of probabilities’ that they were in possession of the drugs for the purpose of something other than supply.
The law also provides that a person who holds drugs momentarily for the owner with a view to returning it is not guilty of supply.
An issue for our client was that there were a number of people to whom the drugs were to be distributed upon entry to the festival, and she made admissions to police that she intended to supply the tablets to these people.
Despite the issues, our defence team wrote a detailed letter – known as ‘representations’ formally requesting withdrawal of the supply charge provided that our client pleaded guilty to drug possession.
She pleaded guilty to that lesser charge and we assisted her in gathering a range of subjective materials, including documents in relation to the impact of a criminal conviction.
After extensive verbal submissions in the local court, and despite submissions against a ‘non conviction’ by the prosecution, Her Honour was persuaded to impose a two-year good behaviour bond without a criminal conviction.
This is an excellent result given the number of tablets involved.
Our client is a 25 year old man who works in the marketing industry.
Police were conducting patrols outside a popular music festival with the assistance of their drug detection dogs, when a dog indicated the presence of drugs in our client’s possession.
When asked by police as to whether he had any drugs on him, our client immediately made full admissions and produced a small resealable bag containing 7 MDMA (‘ecstacy’) pills.
Under the law, any amount of ‘ecstasy’ above 0.75g is considered to be in a person’s possession for the purpose of supply. Our client was not charged with supply on this occasion, but with drug possession only.
Our client instructed us that he intended to plead guilty to that charge, which was the appropriate plea given his immediate admissions and the finding of drugs.
We assisting him in preparing his letter of apology to the court, in seeing a counsellor and obtaining a letter of attendance from her, and in gathering character references with the relevant content.
We made extensive submissions in court in relation to his acceptance of responsibility, steps towards addressing underlying issues, remorse and the likely impact of a criminal conviction on his future plans.
With some hesitation, Her Honour was ultimately persuaded not to record a conviction against our client’s name, but rather to place him on an 18-month good behaviour bond without a criminal record.
Our client was overjoyed by the outcome and looks forward to continuing to advance in his career.
Our client is a 24 year old physical education student.
Police say they observed him entering a ‘known drug premises’ and exiting a short time later with a package.
They followed his car and pulled him over a short time later. They asked whether he had any drugs in the car, to which he replied ‘some steroids’.
They then search his car, located the package on the passenger seat, and within it found a total of 800 Dianabol (steroid) tablets, a 10 ml vial of Sustanox X250 (a steroid) and approximately 1 gram of cannabis.
Our client was then charged with three counts of drug possession in respect of the substances. Given the state of the evidence and our client’s admissions, and after some alterations were agreed by the prosecution to the ‘full facts’, pleas of guilty were entered to the charges.
Our client instructed that he was “obsessed” with his body image. Accordingly, we arranged for him to see a psychologist, who diagnosed him with ‘body dysmorphia’.
He continued seeing the psychologist in the lead-up to the sentencing hearing, and we obtained a report about his underlying issues and the steps he taken towards address them.
We also assisting him to prepare a letter to the court which outlined his acceptance of responsibility, his remorse and his efforts towards rehabilitation. We also helped him in obtaining character references in the proper form.
Despite the quantity of drugs and number of charges, we ultimately persuaded the magistrate to place him on good behaviour bonds for a period of two-years without recording a criminal conviction against his name.
Our previously-anxious client is now confident that his studies will lead to employment as a teacher or instructor.
The self-professed ‘Queen of Richmond’ has been sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment for her role in running a highly-organised international drug syndicate, which used flight attendants to import heroin into Australia.
Michelle Tran was a nail technician by day, and a drug lord outside of business hours. Now, she will spend a minimum term of 13 years behind bars.
During the sentencing hearing, Judge Michael Cahill remarked that Ms Tran inflicted “great harm to the community” when she caused millions of dollars of high-grade heroin to hit Australia’s streets.
Ms Tran pleaded guilty to one count of importing heroin and one count of trafficking heroin, relating to a three month period between October and December 2018.
Sophisticated operation using airline cabin crew
During that time, Ms Tran organised for $2.4 million of heroin to come into Australia, (worth perhaps four times that much on the streets) from Malaysia through a contact known as ‘Mr Hanoi’.
The syndicate also trafficked seven kilograms of ice and 500 grams of cocaine during that time.
The drugs were smuggled into the country using cabin crew for airline Malindo Air who split one kilo of heroin into three packages they could hide inside their bras and underwear.
The court heard that Ms Tran personally profited $20,000 per kilogram of heroin imported, and that while she made all the arrangements she distanced herself from the actual transactions involving the buying and selling of the drugs.
The court also heard that Ms Tran bragged about her ability to source the ‘purest’ heroin available in Australia and while she took an enormous sense of pride in the operation, she initially took over running the cartel from her estranged husband because she had a gambling addiction and as a result owed ‘substantial’ debts to loan sharks.
Several others also imprisoned
One of the flight attendants who smuggled the heroin one kilo at a time into Australia will spend a minimum of four years and nine months in prison.
The court heard that Zailee Zainal was recruited by the drug syndicate when it learned she was desperate to pay for her daughter’s mounting medical bills.
After drawing down on her mortgage, Zainal had taken to selling brownies and Tupperware to make ends meet. She earned just $6,500 from her role, and will likely be deported after she completes her sentence.
The businessman who picked up the heroin in Australia and exchanged it with buyers before taking the money back to Malaysia will spend a minimum of three years behind bars.
And Ms Tran’s right-hand woman, who Tran called her “soldier”, will spend a minimum of seven years in prison.
Drug importation is an offence under sections 307.1 (commercial quantity), 307.2 (marketable quantity) and 307.3 (any quantity) of the Criminal Code Act 1995.
To be found guilty of the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
The term ‘import’ includes to bring the substance into Australia, as well as to deal with the substance in connection with its importation.
The term ‘reckless’ means you foresaw there was a substantial risk the substance was a border controlled plant but went ahead with your actions regardless.
If the prosecution wishes to charge you with importing a marketable or commercial quantity of drugs, it will need to prove the existence of that quantity.
The relevant quantity for the purpose of drug importation offences is the pure quantity of the drugs.
So, for example, if the charges related to 1 kilogram of cocaine at a purity of 45%, the relevant weight for the purpose of the charge is 450 grams.
This is different to state offences such as drug supply, where the entire weight of the substance – known as the ‘admixture’ – is relevant.
Offence | Quantity |
Importing a commercial quantity of drugs (Section 307.1) | · Ecstasy: 500 grams
· Amphetamines: 750 grams · Heroin: 1.5 kilograms · Cocaine: 2 kilograms · Cannabis: 100 kilograms |
Importing a marketable quantity of drugs (Section 307.2) | · Ecstasy: 0.5 grams
· Amphetamines, heroin and cocaine: 2 grams · Cannabis: 25 kilograms
|
Importing any quantity of drugs (Section 307.3) | The prosecution does not need to prove a particular quantity; it will be enough to import any quantity of drugs. |
The maximum penalties that apply to drug importation charges, as well as the penalties actually imposed, are reflected in the following table:
Offence | Quantity | Maximum Penalty | Median penalty |
Importing a commercial quantity of drugs (Section 307.1) | · Ecstasy: 500 grams
· Amphetamines:750 grams · Heroin: 1.5 kilograms · Cocaine: 2 kilograms · Cannabis: 100 kilograms |
Life imprisonment | Imprisonment (92%), with full term of 8 years and non-parole period of 6 years. |
Importing a marketable quantity of drugs (Section 307.2) | · Ecstasy: 0.5 grams
· Amphetamines, heroin and cocaine: 2 grams · Cannabis: 25 kilograms
|
25 years imprisonment | Imprisonment (99%), with full term of 6 years and non-parole period of 4 years. |
Importing any quantity of drugs (Section 307.3) | The prosecution does not need to prove a particular quantity; it will be enough to import any quantity of drugs. | 10 years imprisonment | Imprisonment (62%), with full term of 18 months and non-parole period of 12 months. |
If you or a loved-one is charged with drug importation, call Sydney Drug Lawyers today on (02) 9261 8883 for advice and representation from a specialist criminal defence team that is vastly experienced in defending serious drug cases.
Have a look through our recent criminal law cases for examples of commercial drug importation cases we have won, as well as the difficult circumstances in which we have achieved bail for clients in high-profile, large commercial drug cases
By Sonia Hickey and Ugur Nedim
Users think they’re buying GHB, but they’re actually getting a substance that can be far more dangerous.
Because the drug is legal to import under Commonwealth laws (which govern the importation of substances), the drug has become readily available on the street, at parties and nightclubs across the nation for just $15.
The product is called “Bute”, and is also known as “One-Four”. It’s a clear liquid which is often sold in small, fish-shaped containers, like the ones you might get with your take-away sushi.
Dealers often sell the drug as GHB, but they’re actually selling a solvent named 1,4 Butanediol, which is used in car repairs and during the manufacture of plastics including Lycra.
When Bute is swallowed, the chemical is turned into GHB by the liver, but not immediately. Because it takes three times longer to kick-in than real GHB, users can find themselves disappointed there’s no immediate effect and swallow extra doses, which can lead to harm or even death.
The depressant impact of the drug is exacerbated when taken in combination with alcohol, which police say makes it a real problem on the party scene.
Dealers’ drug of choice
Many dealers prefer to supply Bute over GHB, and it’s easy to see why.
To make real GHB, you need to obtain and process the right amount and type of chemicals in the right way, and to do that you need a manufacturing area. It’s a complex process compared to the procurement of “Bute,” which can be easily obtained over the internet.
What’s more, Bute can often be imported without suspicion of wrongdoing, because it has a range of industrial applications.
The procuring of Bute is relatively easy – as simple as setting up a fake business and importing the drug under that name. This means dealers are less likely to be detected and prosecuted, and trading in the drug can be highly profitable. 200 litres of Bute has a wholesale price as low as $2000, generating astronomical margins when distributed in tiny containers.
We’ve recently heard reports of ‘bad batches’ of GHB, resulting in overdoses and other health crises at dance parties, festivals and nightclubs. However, police now suspect the deadly drug is not GHB at all, but Bute.
Most Bute comes from China, and Australian Border Force officers have reported coming across large and unexplained importations of the chemical on a daily basis.
Strong word of warning
Although Bute is legal to import under Commonwealth law, it is classified as a prohibited drug under Schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) and is therefore illegal to possess or supply under the provisions of that Act.
This essentially means that those who import the substance by relying upon Federal law may potentially still be prosecuted for drug possession or supply under state legislation.
In fact, those who are found in possession of a ‘traffickable quantity’ of Bute – which is not less than 30 grams – may be charged with drug supply even where there is no evidence that they actually supplied or even intended to supply the drug.
This due to the law of ‘deemed supply’ (section 29 of the Drugs Act) which says that a person found in possession of a traffickable quantity is guilty of supply unless they can prove it was possessed for something other than supply eg for personal use only.
Indeed, the inconsistency between federal and state legislation potentially puts legitimate importers of Bute at risk of being mistaken for drug suppliers and potentially prosecuted.
Reported cases
The Age has reported two cases of how the legislative inconsistency is being taken advantage of by drug dealers.
The first case involved a career drug supplier who was caught by police with several illegal products, plus 40 litres of Bute.
He argued in court the Bute was intended for legitimate industrial purposes, his prior convictions could not be disclosed, and the jury ultimately found him not guilty, after directions about the fact that Commonwealth legislation prevails over the State legislation to the extent of any inconsistency.
Another supplier was caught with a small amount of what he genuinely thought was GHB, and was surprised when police tested it positive for Bute.
Eventually, realising how easy (and legit) it is to order the chemical online, the supplier reportedly registered himself as a cleaning company, leased a warehouse and began to import tonnes of the stuff despite having no clients and no equipment.
‘The next big thing’
Around 40% of Australian adults have admitted using an illicit substance at some point in their lives.
In terms of supply, are more than 100,000 drug seizures in Australia every year and the market continues to grow.
Police have expressed concerns over Bute and also about “the next big thing”, which they say is Carfentanil – a Chinese product which is up to 10,000 times as powerful as morphine, and is used to sedate large animals such as elephants.
A number of fatal overdoses from Carfentanil have been reported in Canada and the US, and front line health care workers are said to be bracing themselves to deal with patients who present with overdoses from the drug.
It’s a case that raises more questions than answers.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Border Force (AFB) are claiming that three Canadian tourists carried bags stuffed with 95 kilos of cocaine into Sydney, after apparently having the time of their lives in several South American countries.
They say a law enforcement operation involving agencies from around the world resulted in a raid on the Sea Princess while it was docked in Sydney Harbour.
Officers searched the ship when it berthed, allegedly finding suitcases full of the illegal white powder. It is the biggest seizure of narcotics through a passenger stream into Australia.
The cocaine, with an estimated street value of over $30 million, is said to have been stashed in luggage linked to two women in their 20s and a man in his 60s.
The trio were arrested and charged with importing a commercial quantity of cocaine, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
The Sea Princess travelled from Southampton in England, where the three Canadians boarded, and stopped over at a number of South American countries, including Colombia, Peru and Chile.
The AFP is unable to say whether the drugs were loaded onto the ship during one of those stops, or how the passengers were able to have so much cocaine alongside their ‘regular’ belongings.
International operation led to bust
Law enforcement officials are claiming to have disrupted a major international crime syndicate which they say was attempting to flood Australian streets with illegal drugs, although no further details have been provided. The ship was destined for other ports in Australia, but authorities are unable to say which cities the drugs were ultimately intended for.
The defendants came before Central Local Court where they did not apply for bail, and were formally refused.
Not the first cruise ship seizure
Tim Fitzgerald, the regional commander for the ABF in NSW, says this is not the first cruise ship seizure in our state:
“We had a similar situation last year … but this is the largest,” he said.
He went on to speak of the AFB’s success in seizing drugs:
“Last financial year alone the Border Force intercepted 18,000 [importations of] narcotics at our various borders, international mail centres, airports, sea ports, sea cargo, air cargo — 22.5 tonnes of narcotics… have been detected in two years.”
However, most agree this is a drop in the ocean compared to the overall quantity of drugs imported into Australia.
The three defendants will face court again in October, unless their lawyers make an application for bail beforehand.
Their defence, if they have one, is not yet known – although 95 kilos seems a lot of cocaine unless some other party had a hand in the events.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has released its annual World Drug Report, with mixed results in the area of drug use and trafficking.
Overall, the UN estimates that 1 in 20 adults worldwide used an illicit drug in 2014, a figure which has remained steady over the past four years.
The bad news is that the number of people suffering from drug-use disorders has increased, hitting a record 29 million in 2014. According to the report, the health costs are particularly concerning as an estimated 12 million people are injecting drugs, with 14% living with HIV.
New Trends
UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov outlined a number of further concerns, including:
“the disastrous resurgence of heroin in some regions; the use of the ‘Darknet’ for drug trafficking; the appalling loss of life due to overdoses, and the disproportionate impact illicit drugs have on women, among many others challenges.”
The Report found that the proliferation of anonymous online marketplaces is playing a key role in drug trafficking. It pointed out that:
“Monica Barratt, a researcher from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at UNSW Australia… [found that] 8,058 GDS respondents out of 101,313 (8 percent) said they had used the dark web to source drugs. That’s up from around 5,000 in 2015, and 2,000 in 2014”.
Drug Use by Gender
The Report found that men are three times more likely than women to use cannabis, cocaine or amphetamines, while women are more likely to take opioids and tranquilizers for non-medical purposes.
This disparity is believed to be linked to increased opportunities for men to access drugs in their social environment.
The Report further found that the impact of drug use was greater on women because they difficulty accessing treatment facilities for their issues.
Spike in Heroin
Consistent with other studies, the Report found that North America has seen increase in both heroin use, and heroin-related deaths.
The US Drug Enforcement Agency’s National Heroin Threat Assessment Summary reports that the number of heroin users has been rising rapidly — there were 435,000 heroin users in 2014, a three-fold increase on 2007.
During the same period, the number of overdose deaths involving heroin jumped from 3,036 in 2010, to 10,574 in 2014.
Synthetic Drugs
The Report also found an increased use in synthetic drugs, which is again consistent with other recent studies.
Joseph J. Palamar, an Assistant Professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, tested hair samples from people outside clubs and festivals in New York, finding that four out of 10 people who reported only taking ‘ecstacy’ also came up positive for bath salts (a lab-created drug chemically similar to cathinone, a stimulant).
A separate European Report unearthed 101 new street drugs in 2014 alone. Most were synthetic cannabinoids, but there were also a number of variations of synthetic bath salts, known on the street as ‘flakka’.
UN Response
The Report is heavy on data but disappointingly light on solutions.
Rather than making solid recommendations for addressing drug issues and devising a plan for reform, the UN Secretary-General has called for “a global response that is simultaneously effective, compassionate and humane”.
Ineffectiveness of UNGASS
The Report follows the recent UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS), which was heavily criticised for failing to condemn the “war on drugs” and neglecting to propose a pathway towards drug reform.
In the lead-up to UNGASS, drug reformists were hopeful the UN would urge member states to decriminalise small drug possession, and make recommendations addressing the collateral damage cause by the drug war. Indeed, the conference was brought forward from 2019 following pleas by the presidents of Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico; nations that are heavily affected by prohibitionist policies.
However, the conference saw representatives of member states rambling on about problems, facts and figures with little guidance or direction being provided by UN heads or mediators, and no recommendations for reform.
Drug reformists argue that, until the UN takes a firmer leadership role which recognises current policy failures and recommends pathways to reform, little will change on a global scale.
A Western Australian Judge has declared the State has lost its war on drugs, as suppliers are undeterred by heavy penalties and increased enforcement measures.
During a District Court sentencing hearing, Judge Philip McCann called the ‘ice epidemic’ “a national and international disgrace,” blaming the continuing flow of the drug on Chinese drug cartels.
He conceded that drug experts are correct to say it is impossible to stop supply into the State by “criminal gangs in Asia”, who he believes targeted the growing drug market created by the WA mining boom.
Drug Use in Western Australia
The 2013 national drug survey found that 3.8% of Western Australians aged over 13 had used methamphetamine during the previous year, significantly higher than the national average of 2.1%. The percentage using the crystalised version, or ice, rose from 43.9 to 78.2% between 2012 to 2013 – also well-above the rise in other jurisdictions.
The Judge added that WA Health Department data suggests the problem has worsened since the 2013 survey.
“We can no longer do anything to stop the predatory importing of the drug by Chinese criminal gangs and their Australian affiliates,” he said, suggesting that increased penalties and the targeting of offenders has done little to stem the problem.
“The damage now seems to have almost irreparably been done. The opportunities to do something about this were lost some years ago.”
State Response
Last year, the WA government established dedicated methamphetamine taskforces, conducting the biggest drug operation in the State’s history. Police Minister Liza Harvey said “Meth Transport Teams” were aiming to stop the flow of the drug from Asia.
The expensive initiative appears to achieved little, other than wasting taxpayer money and further demonising and alienating low-level users.
Government Initiatives
In last week’s State Budget, WA Treasurer Mike Nahan took the positive step of unveiling a $15 million boost to the Mental Health Commission, designed to target methamphetamine use. But at the same time, he set aside an additional $5.5 million for roadside drug testing.
Late last year, the Federal government committed to a $300 million strategy aimed at implementing recommendations by the National Ice Taskforce. Much of the money will be going to ‘primary health networks’ such as hospitals and medical centres, in order to treat users and assist them to overcome addiction.
And while Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has conceded that “we cannot arrest our way to success,” the Federal Government’s continues invest the lion’s share of resources into punitive measures rather than prevention and diversion.
Prevention is Better than a ‘Cure’
Justice Minister Michael Keenan has acknowledged that police are struggling to control supply, suggesting more should be done to educate and reduce demand. “If we are going to break the drug dealer’s model, we need to smash demand,” he said.
Reducing demand requires adequate funding to services which address the factors leading to addiction in the first place, including those which help improve socio-economic status and mental health. Spending on housing, employment support and mental health services has been shown by initiatives like justice reinvestment to decrease demand, reduce crime and enhance social cohesion and economic productivity.
The UN Office 2013 World Drug Report says that for every dollar spent on prevention, there is a benefit of four to seven dollars to the economy overall. Such investments can reduce healthcare and enforcement costs, while enhancing productivity.
Professor Nick Crofts of The Nossal Institute for Global Health was recently commissioned to report on the problem of methamphetamine use. “We interviewed something like 50 senior police, senior magistrates, senior politicians, senior public servants,” he said. “Every one of them, unanimously, said, ‘You are absolutely right and we totally agree with you, we need to move away from prohibition, we need more social policy, and you will never catch me saying that in public’.”
It is hoped State and Federal governments act upon that “unanimous” view, and move away from the current punitive model.
The dangerous task of smuggling illicit drugs across borders is not for the faint-hearted.
But those who dare to take the risk often hinge their bets on elaborate smuggling tactics – hiding drugs inside everyday items, dropping packages off aircraft and even swallowing the drugs themselves in a bid to get them through border security.
In this blog we discuss five of the world’s most creative drug smuggling tactics.
1. The Tomato Tin Mafia
Partners in crime Pasquale Barbaro and Saverio Zirilli bit off more than they could chew when they tried to import a whopping 4.4 tonnes (or 15 million pills) of ecstasy – creatively hidden inside hundreds of tins of Italian tomatoes.
Unfortunately, their plan fell apart when the shipping container housing the tins was left unclaimed after making the voyage from Italy to Australia – raising the suspicions of Australian authorities. An X-ray showed ‘image anomalies,’ and Customs officers were shocked to discover millions of ecstasy pills hidden away in the tins.
Police monitoring the communications of Barbaro and Zirilli and other soon discovered they were becoming increasingly anxious about how they would collect the tins. Both men were subsequently arrested and charged with conspiring to traffic a commercial quantity of MDMA, trafficking a commercial quantity of MDMA and attempting to possess a commercial quantity of cocaine for their roles in one of Australia’s biggest ever drug busts.
Both men pleaded guilty to all charges in the Victorian Supreme Court. Barbaro was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years, and Zirilli received 26 years with a non-parole period of 18 years – a sentence confirmed on appeal to the High Court.
2. The Marijuana Cannon
The US-Mexico border is notorious for drug smuggling – with Mexican drug lords happy to put the lives and liberty of smugglers at risk to supply the American market.
The border is famously monitored by US authorities – so it is no surprise that over the years, smugglers have devised elaborate schemes to get their product across the border.
One of the most creative tactics was a ‘marijuana cannon,’ discovered by police in the city of Mexicali in 2013. The plastic cannon was attached to an old ute, and used its engine to generate compressed air – which was used to launch packages of marijuana into the air and across the border into California.
The scheme unravelled when US police reported finding a large number of packages containing up to 13 kilograms of marijuana which had apparently been fired across the border. While it is believed the device belonged to Mexican gangs, no arrests have been made.
3. Woman Smuggles Cocaine in Breasts
Earlier this week, a 24-year-old Colombian woman was arrested in Germany after being caught with 1 kilogram of cocaine hidden inside her breasts.
An examination of the woman after she arrived in the country on the 24th of February revealed she had fresh operation scars under her breasts. The woman admitted to smuggling drugs and went to hospital, where doctors removed two 500 gram, plastic-covered packages of cocaine from her breasts.
It is believed the packages had a street value of 200,000 euros and were intended for sale in Spain. The woman, who remains unnamed, will be charged with drug trafficking – which some feel may be a blessing in disguise given that she could have lost her life had the packages ruptured.
It is not the first time a woman has attempted to conceal drugs in her breasts – in 2015, a Honduran woman was arrested at a Colombian airport after being caught with 1.5 kg of liquid cocaine in her breasts.
4. Mexican Drug Tunnels
Extracting tonnes of soil to create an elaborate tunnel across the US-Mexico border might seem like a lot of effort to smuggle drugs – but it’s a strategy that is commonly employed by Mexican drug cartels.
In fact, TIME Magazine reports that since 2001, over 100 drug tunnels have been unearthed by US authorities – some with entrances leading directly into houses.
Many of the tunnels are even fitted out with sophisticated equipment, including complex lighting, electrical and water systems, and even carts to transport the drugs efficiently.
5. Thai Meth Sculptures
Sometimes, the best plans are the simplest – but not always, as an Iranian man who tried to smuggle $1.6 million worth of crystal methamphetamine into Thailand disguised as artwork discovered.
28-year-old Safi Zadeh Hossein was arrested at Suvarnabhumi International Airport in 2011 after arriving from Syria. Authorities became suspicious of two sculptures being carried by the man – one shaped like a yellow rose and the other resembling a cameo. Upon examination, the sculptures were found to be made entirely out of crystal methamphetamine.
Hossein’s fate remains unclear – but if the plight of the Bali Nine is anything to go by, it is likely that he has an ordeal ahead.
What’s the highest paying job in Sydney?
If you’re thinking along the lines of a banker, lawyer or doctor, you’d be off the mark. According to a recent report by the NSW Crime Commission, drug importers are raking in huge profits – despite a steep decline in wholesale prices.
The Commission says that the price of a kilogram of cocaine has fallen from $280,000 three years ago to between $180,000 to $200,000 today. The price of ‘ice’ has more than halved during the same period, from $220,000 to $95,000.
The fall has been attributed to increases in supply, indicating that drug smugglers are getting better at importing larger quantities of drugs – which equals larger profits.
Meanwhile, the street prices for these drugs have remained unchanged, meaning that organised crime groups are benefiting from greater profits.
Government efforts to stop drug importation have proven to be futile. Despite government agencies seizing 7.3 tonnes of illegal drugs and chemicals in 2014/15, (with one seizure comprising 2.8 tonnes of ice and MDMA worth $1.5 billion), the most recent Report notes that:
‘it was one of Australia’s largest ever drug seizures but, despite this seizure, the price of both ice and MDMA has continued to drop, suggesting a continuing plentiful supply.’
The Report also states that:
‘the illicit drug trade in Australia from drug importation through to street level distribution continues to be the chief source of income for organised crime in Australia.’
Who Imports Drugs and How?
The Report examines the characteristics of those who import drugs – finding that they originate from many different countries, including Mexico, Vietnam, Canada and the United States. It found that the vast majority of drugs, excluding locally grown cannabis, originated from outside Australia – but once the drugs arrived in Australia, they were generally handled by organised crime groups, such as motorcycle groups and ethnic gangs, including those of Vietnamese, Armenian, Russian and Lebanese origin.
The Report suggests that drug smuggling operations are becoming more sophisticated – that importers are getting better at concealing drugs that are shipped or flown over.
The Report also suggests that Sydney’s booming property market is providing a ‘demand for funds’ into Australia, facilitating money laundering operations by providing a reasonable excuse for smugglers to transfer large sums of money into the country.
Penalties for Drug Importation
Drug importation is a Federal offence under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. The maximum penalty depends on the amount of drugs in question, as well as the type of drug imported:
What Can Be Done?
The Report confirms that costly government surveillance operations and drug seizures do little to stop the flow of drugs into Australia. Those who dare to import drugs despite the heavy penalties do not stay in Australia for long – generally leaving once the job is complete.
The Report also found that:
‘There is further evidence that the seizures did not deter large syndicates, who regarded the loss of the drugs as merely a business overhead, and there was strong intelligence to suggest that syndicates will simply embark upon new variations of methods for importation to continue their business in order to recoup losses following the seizures.’
Many argue that the best solution to the question of drugs is the decriminalisation and regulation of their use, and ensuring that users are given access to treatment rather than arrested and sent through the criminal justice system.
But sadly, our government seems intent on wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in its futile war against drugs, and those who choose to use them.
If you’ve been reading the news lately, you may have heard about the recapture of notorious drug lord Joaquín Guzmán, better known as ‘El Chapo,’ or ‘The Shorty.’ Guzmán’s brazen escape from a high-security Mexican prison in 2014 was detailed in one of our earlier blogs.
He was recaptured earlier this week after nearly 6 months on the run, with U.S. and Mexican authorities hailing the arrest as a massive win in the war against drugs.
Who is Guzman?
As leader of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel, Guzmán regularly ranks as one of the world’s most powerful drug traffickers – with the Drug Enforcement Adminstration (DEA) naming him ‘the godfather of the drug world’ and claiming he is even more influential than Pablo Escobar.
The Sinaloa Cartel is renowned for smuggling huge quantities of methamphetamine, marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin into the United States, and Guzmán himself is believed to have smuggled more drugs into the U.S than anyone else in history.
If those claims are true, some might think that Guzmán’s arrest will help win the fight against drugs – but in reality, it will have little or no impact.
Here’s are just a few reasons why:
1. Guzmán Can Run His Empire Behind Bars
Prison is supposed to deter people from committing crimes – but not in Guzmán’s case. He spent over seven years in prison prior to his first escape in 2001 – during which his empire flourished.
Guzmán has the ability to control his operations from behind bars, aided by his brother – and he uses the corrupt Mexican prison system to his advantage, even bribing guards to help orchestrate his first escape.
This is simply a case where prison will act as no deterrence either for other drug lords (because they have no regard for the law anyhow) or the powerful Guzmán himself.
2. The Laws of Supply and Demand
From an economic perspective, arresting one of the big drug kingpins will do little to stop the drug trade.
Even if Guzmán’s arrest leads to a decrease in supply, drug users will be willing to pay a premium to source their drugs elsewhere – which, in turn, will fund further drug activity.
For users – especially those who use highly addictive substances such as cocaine, ice or heroin – drugs are a lifeblood for survival, just like food and water. Simply taking away one drug source and jacking up prices won’t impact on whether they will be purchased.
This is one of the reasons why the war on drugs is so ineffective compared to harm minimisation strategies. Drug users will continue to take drugs regardless of the risk or price, so our best bet is reducing the harm associated with drug use through better regulation and the provision of adequate health services.
3. There Are Plenty of Other Cartels Out There
While the Sinaloa Cartel is widely regarded as the biggest, the fact remains that there are plenty of other powerful drug cartels which are more than capable of supplying drugs to the United States.
The Los Zetas, Gulf, Tijuana, Knights Templar and Juárez cartels each control major trafficking routes between the United States and Mexico – and there are dozens of other major cartels scattered throughout South and Central America. Even if the Sinaloa Cartel were disbanded, another would simply step into its place.
Indeed, history has many examples of this occurring. For instance, when the once-powerful Tijuana cartel was fragmented during early 21st century, the Sinaloa cartel simply stepped in to fill the gaps. The same fate will likely befall the Sinaloa cartel if it is affected by Guzmán’s recapture: another rival cartel will simply seize the opportunity to gain new territory.
For those and other reasons, the US Department of Homeland Security admitted in 2001 that ‘there is no perceptible pattern that correlates either a decrease or increase in drug seizures due to the removal of key [drug cartel] personnel.’
Smuggling and dealing drugs is a risky business – so naturally you would assume that those who do it would take extra precautions to prevent them from getting caught, right?
Wrong!
Here we share the stories of five of the dumbest drug offenders.
1. Water Leak Leads to Drug Bust
Police had already received reports of suspicious people entering and leaving unemployed bodybuilder Bektash Keshavarzi’s Ryde apartment – but his operation unravelled spectacularly when a downstairs neighbour reported a water leak emanating from his unit.
Police obtained a warrant to search the unit; only to discover that it was completely empty – except for several safes, heightening police suspicions and triggering a surveillance operation. The apartment was leased to Mr Keshavarzi under a false name – and police soon discovered that Keshavarzi was renting a number of other apartments on Sydney’s north shore, well beyond his means.
Upon searching a property in Gladesville, police found a large amount of drugs including 88 kilograms of methamphetamine (‘ice’) and $330,090 in cash, as well as quantities of pseudoephedrine – a precursor used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. A raid on his unit at Mowbray Road, Artarmon also uncovered a number of false identity documents and over $12,000 in cash.
It is one of the biggest drug busts in Sydney in recent times.
Keshavarzi was charged with manufacturing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, supplying a large commercial quantity of MDMA, and numerous fraud offences.
He appeared before Sydney’s Central Local Court last week, where he was granted strict conditional bail subject to $1 million security.
The DPP has reportedly made a ‘detention application’ to the Supreme Court in an attempt to keep him behind bars.
2. Drug Mule Narrowly Escapes Death
48-year-old British man Colmin Smith may not be the sharpest tool in the shed – but he’s a very lucky man.
Smith made the dangerous decision ingest 239 grams of cocaine packed inside 61 pellets in an attempt to smuggle the drugs from Antigua to London.
But shortly after takeoff, one of the pellets burst inside his stomach. He was able to alert a flight attendant to his sticky situation before losing consciousness.
The plane was forced to make an emergency landing in Bermuda, and Mr Smith was rushed to hospital to have the packets removed. Thankfully, he survived the surgery and was able to make it to Court, where he was convicted of just one charge of possession and fined £471.
According to police, he could only be charged with possession because there was no evidence to suggest he intended to sell or smuggle the drugs to Bermuda.
3. ‘Breaking Bad’ Drug Manufacturer Caught
A Victorian woman who operated a ‘Breaking Bad’ style laboratory – out of a hotel room – was caught after police raided her room, finding a variety of lab equipment and chemicals.
25-year-old Melinda Hansen was charged with drug trafficking and possessing drug manufacturing equipment and documents.
Police reportedly found a wealth of evidence against the woman – including selfies which depicted her with large amounts of drugs and cash.
Numerous text messages exchanged between Ms Hansen and other individuals allegedly supporting allegations that she was a dealer.
4. Drug Dealer Posts Photo of Himself Supplying Drugs to Police
Showing off your stash is not the smartest way to run a drug operation – as one Florida man learned the hard way.
21-year-old male stripper Taylor Harrison made the fateful decision of snapping selfies of him sitting in his car topless, with a pile of cannabis and cash on his lap.
Unbeknownst to him, police were parked right next to him, witnessing the entire photoshoot.
To make matters worse, Harrison then attempted to sell drugs to the police officer, and even managed to snap a photo of the exchange taking place – which he shared on Facebook.
Police arrested and charged him with drug supply, and shared his mugshot on their Facebook page, noting: ‘Since Taylor was kind enough to share photos of us on his Facebook page, we thought we would share these photos of Taylor on our page.’
5. Man Lists ‘Drug Dealer’ as Occupation
25-year-old Richard Phillips’ day started on a bad note after he cut off a police car in traffic.
But things soon went from bad to worse after police followed and observed him dealing drugs.
He was arrested and taken back to the police station, where he was asked to fill out his arrest forms. But in an inexplicable act of stupidity, he listed ‘drug dealer’ as his occupation on the forms.
It later transpired that the car he was driving was stolen.
He was charged with a number of offences, including stealing a vehicle and drug supply.
For years, we have endured successive political leaders telling us that the only way to tackle drug use is to outlaw drugs altogether, and to impose harsh penalties on those who dare to break the law.
As a result, Australia’s drug laws have remained largely unchanged for decades, despite research showing that prohibition and punishment are not the best approach.
The latest statistics published by the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency (VCSA) provide further evidence that the war on drugs simply is not working; suggesting that the possession and use of drugs has not declines over the last decade – despite police and other agencies being equipped with greater resources.
Statistics Turn the Spotlight on Drug Crime
The VSCA utilised various data, including police records, between 2005 and 2015 to track the rates of drug use and possession in metropolitan, regional and rural Victoria, and to ascertain how the characteristics of offenders and crime rates differed across various geographical regions.
The statistics suggest that drug possession offences across the state increased from a rate of around 150 incidents per 100,000 people, to around 275 per 100,000 over that period of time. Drug possession was more prolific in regional areas, where it increased from around 175 incidents per 100,000, to over 350.
The study found that the characteristics of drug users has also changed over time; for instance, the percentage of female offenders has increased from 18% in 2011 to over 22% in 2015. Offenders located within metropolitan regions were more likely to be aged between 20 and 29 at the time of their first offence, while those in country areas were more likely to be aged over 40.
Why is the War on Drugs Failing?
As outlined in several previous blogs, the increase in police resources has failed to reduce the use of illicit drugs in Australian communities, particularly rural areas and at targeted events like music festivals. It appears that users remain undeterred by the threat of police intervention and heavy penalties, even when they know that police and sniffer dogs will be present.
Given the trend, it seems futile for Australian taxpayers to plough hundreds of millions of dollars every year into detecting and prosecuting minor drug offences; which have clogged up our courts and lined the pockets of criminal defence lawyers, without reducing the rates of drug use.
As previously discussed, treating drug use as a health problem – rather than as a crime – has been highly successful in encouraging users to get help in several overseas countries, including Portugal and Norway, and in reducing the number of deaths from drug overdoses, lowering rates of drug-associated crime and helping habitual users to overcome their addictions.
In 2014, a working group presented a number of submissions to this effect to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, noting that drug abuse was a disease and should therefore be addressed by public health bodies rather than the criminal justice system.
Dr. Nora Volkow, who headed the group, observed that:
‘No one would imagine that enforcing tough legal sanctions on people with a chronic condition such as heart disease could help address that illness or its causes, or help prevent it in others. Criminal justice is clearly not the way forward in dealing with substance use disorders either; putting people with addictions in prison and perpetuating various legal barriers to seeking or providing substance abuse treatment are only hindrances.’
The United Nations is due to hold a special session on international drug issues next year. It hopes that member states will heed the advice provided by Dr. Volkow’s group amongst others, and take the first steps towards reclassifying drug use as a health issue, rather than criminally prosecuting users and alienating them from the community.