Despite an admission to selling drugs, with cocaine and cash in the car, the evidence was excluded as unlawfully obtained at the defended hearing and all charges were dismissed.
Result at a glance
- Charges: Supply of a prohibited drug (cocaine), s25 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). Dealing with the proceeds of crime (cash), s193B Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime (Audemars Piguet watch valued over $60,000).
- Court: Downing Centre Local Court.
- Hearing: Defended hearing (summary trial before a Magistrate).
- Outcome: Not guilty on all charges. Watch returned to our client.
The charges
Our client was pulled over by police, who searched the vehicle and found cocaine, a quantity of cash, and an Audemars Piguet watch valued at over $60,000. Our client admitted to selling drugs that night and confirmed the seized cash came from those sales. Three charges followed: supply of a prohibited drug (cocaine) under s25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, dealing with the proceeds of crime (the cash) under s193B of the Crimes Act 1900, and possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime (the watch).
The exposure
Supply of a prohibited drug carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment for a non-commercial quantity. With drugs recovered from the car, cash consistent with sales, a watch the prosecution alleged was bought with criminal proceeds, and a direct admission made at the scene, the prosecution's case appeared complete. A conviction would have meant a criminal record and the prospect of full-time custody.
The issue: was the evidence lawfully obtained
Every charge depended on the items seized from the vehicle and the statements made during the arrest. Remove that evidence and the charges have no foundation. The issue was not whether the evidence looked damning. It did. The issue was whether police had obtained it lawfully, because evidence has to exist and to have been obtained according to law.
What we argued
We obtained the full police brief of evidence and analysed every step of the stop, the arrest and the vehicle search. In NSW, the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA) governs how police may search a vehicle and arrest a person. A vehicle search without consent or a warrant requires a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains something connected to an offence, and an arrest must comply with Part 8 of LEPRA. The analysis showed the arresting officers had exceeded their authority: the arrest and the search did not comply with LEPRA, which made both unlawful.
Where a search is unlawful, the material that flows from it is affected. The cocaine, the cash, the watch, and the admission made after arrest all became improperly obtained evidence. Under s138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), a court has a discretion to exclude evidence obtained illegally or improperly. The court weighs the value of admitting the evidence against the cost of admitting evidence obtained in breach of the law. The argument was not that our client was innocent, but that the evidence proving the charges should not have been before the court at all. The matter proceeded to a defended hearing at the Downing Centre Local Court, a summary trial before a Magistrate.
The result
The Magistrate found the arrest and search unlawful and excluded the evidence. Without the physical evidence and the admission, the prosecution could not prove its case. Our client was found not guilty on all charges, the cocaine supply, the proceeds of crime, and the possession charge, and the watch seized on the night was returned. The outcome turned on a single question: whether police followed the law when they searched the car and arrested our client.
Why the result mattered
The strength of the physical evidence and the admission made guilt look settled. What decided the case was the lawfulness of the search and arrest, established by working through the brief step by step against the requirements of LEPRA. That analysis made the s138 exclusion argument available, and the exclusion is what left the prosecution with no case.
What this case shows
How evidence is obtained can matter as much as what it shows. Police powers in NSW are real but limited, and where officers exceed them, the evidence can be challenged and excluded under s138, regardless of what it reveals. Even an admission can be set aside if the arrest that produced it was unlawful. Whether a search was lawful is the first question worth asking after a police stop, and we cover it on our drug charges and proceeds of crime pages.
Charged after a police search?
Where there is a real question about the basis for a stop, search or arrest, it should be examined early, because it can decide whether the evidence is admissible at all. If you've been charged with drug supply, drug possession, proceeds of crime, or any offence following a police search anywhere in Sydney, call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and appear in courts across Sydney and NSW.
This case study is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each criminal matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and personal circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.
Charged? Find out where you stand
Confidential. No obligation. Same day response.
