I recently had a legal issue and was charged with drug possession.
I hired a criminal lawyer to defend my rights.
The pressing issue in my case was the lawfulness of the actions of the police when they used their powers to stop and search . This was the question before the court. If the actions were found to be unlawful the court should use its discretion not to admit evidence.
The advice from my lawyer was it appears that there is no authority under the law as the evidence does not show the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and search. This was the consistent message throughout my case.
Come the day of court my lawyer suddenly tells me she doesn’t have high hopes due to the particular Magistrate on the day.
The prosecution put to the court I was intercepted for drug enforcement purposes.
The judge was asked to restrict the evidence he considered to that available to the officer when he made the decision to authorise drug enforcement act and intercept me for this purpose.
On the officers pretrial statement the officer states he formed a reasonable suspicion for a prescribed offence (drugs offence) after he stoped me and asked me questions to which I declined to answer. In addition he calls on my demeanour and behaviours and observations I was nervous and eager to leave police presence.
In his testimony to the court the officer tells a different version of events and relies on different circumstances to form his reasonable suspicion. In this version he said I was using my phone in a suspicious manner, this was identified from his knowledge acquired from an online course on criminal suspect behaviour (was not mentioned pretrial) Additionally he observed me talking to another man and he believes the other man spotted him in his unmarked police car and warned me of his presence (was not mention pretrial) . Along with a few generalised facts about the neighbourhood.
The only video evidence shown to the judge was the BWC on the interception (evidence not disclosed pretrial) where my first words spoken are “why am I being stoped officer”?. The officer replies “I was stoped under the traffic management act for running a red light.
As you can see there seems to be three different versions of events presented as evidence by the same officer.
My opinion is the judge took all these different versions of events under consideration as one event and claims the authority to stop and search lawful.
I feel my lawyer mishandled my case in court. He failed to effectively cross examine the witness (police officer). He also failed to identify to the court the varied versions of events that the officer has presented which at best only one version could have been the truth.
Was I given the wrong advice in my matter or has my Lawyer not been diligent in his representation?
Would the circumstances be considered negligent?
I’m mostly shocked how the advice was in his view there was no lawful authority to search (which I agreed with) and felt my case was strong in comparison to the prosecution to on the day lack of confidence in securing the desired outcome which seen me with a guilty plea, down 10k in legal fees and with the ruling as it stands have no avenue to submit complaints about police conduct.
I hired a criminal lawyer to defend my rights.
The pressing issue in my case was the lawfulness of the actions of the police when they used their powers to stop and search . This was the question before the court. If the actions were found to be unlawful the court should use its discretion not to admit evidence.
The advice from my lawyer was it appears that there is no authority under the law as the evidence does not show the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and search. This was the consistent message throughout my case.
Come the day of court my lawyer suddenly tells me she doesn’t have high hopes due to the particular Magistrate on the day.
The prosecution put to the court I was intercepted for drug enforcement purposes.
The judge was asked to restrict the evidence he considered to that available to the officer when he made the decision to authorise drug enforcement act and intercept me for this purpose.
On the officers pretrial statement the officer states he formed a reasonable suspicion for a prescribed offence (drugs offence) after he stoped me and asked me questions to which I declined to answer. In addition he calls on my demeanour and behaviours and observations I was nervous and eager to leave police presence.
In his testimony to the court the officer tells a different version of events and relies on different circumstances to form his reasonable suspicion. In this version he said I was using my phone in a suspicious manner, this was identified from his knowledge acquired from an online course on criminal suspect behaviour (was not mentioned pretrial) Additionally he observed me talking to another man and he believes the other man spotted him in his unmarked police car and warned me of his presence (was not mention pretrial) . Along with a few generalised facts about the neighbourhood.
The only video evidence shown to the judge was the BWC on the interception (evidence not disclosed pretrial) where my first words spoken are “why am I being stoped officer”?. The officer replies “I was stoped under the traffic management act for running a red light.
As you can see there seems to be three different versions of events presented as evidence by the same officer.
My opinion is the judge took all these different versions of events under consideration as one event and claims the authority to stop and search lawful.
I feel my lawyer mishandled my case in court. He failed to effectively cross examine the witness (police officer). He also failed to identify to the court the varied versions of events that the officer has presented which at best only one version could have been the truth.
Was I given the wrong advice in my matter or has my Lawyer not been diligent in his representation?
Would the circumstances be considered negligent?
I’m mostly shocked how the advice was in his view there was no lawful authority to search (which I agreed with) and felt my case was strong in comparison to the prosecution to on the day lack of confidence in securing the desired outcome which seen me with a guilty plea, down 10k in legal fees and with the ruling as it stands have no avenue to submit complaints about police conduct.