John was Arrested in Fortitude Valley and charged with the possession and sale of cocaine

Assignment Task

Question

1 - John was arrested in Fortitude Valley and charged with the possession and sale of cocaine. Give advice to the following parties:

Part A: An undercover police officer, dressed in plainclothes, overheard John speaking to another man at the nightclub, and said the following words, “Watch my back, I’ve got to get this bloke a burger”. Assume that John’s statement “Watch my back, I’ve got to get this bloke a burger” is admissible.

The undercover police officer seeks to give evidence as an expert in gangland drug vernacular. It is the opinion of the undercover police officer that the statement made by John refers to (1) asking that his associate keep an eye out for law enforcement; and (2) that a “burger” is a term used to describe cocaine. The undercover police officer has 15-years of experience working in the QPS Organised Crime Gangs Group. Explain how this evidence is/is not relevant; and whether the undercover police will be allowed to give evidence if John’s defence counsel objects.

Part B: QPS exercised a lawful search warrant of John’s Fortitude Valley apartment. It is indisputably spectacular, and has a panoramic city view, European appliances, stone benchtops, a freestanding stone bathtub, infinity edge pool, and other high-end amenities. The police located a box on John’s kitchen bench addressed to John, from Colombia. Inside the box were tins of beans that contained 5 kilograms of liquid cocaine. John does not intend to give evidence. Can an adverse inference be drawn if he does not do so, in relation to:

(1) The arrival of the package from Columbia, addressed to John; and

(2) John’s ownership of the Fortitude Valley apartment. The prosecution will assert that John has no known legitimate source of funds and therefore an inference can be drawn that the apartment was purchased through drug sales proceeds. Page 3 of 4 (3) Outline any directions the trial judge may need to give.

Part C: The prosecution wants to call John’s wife, fashion model and celebrity hair stylist, Mary. Mary has not been charged with any offences, however is widely known to live the Fortitude Valley highlife, often seen lunching at expensive restaurants, and driving her distinctive pink Lamborghini. QPS strongly suspects that John launders the proceeds of drug sales through Mary’s hair salon. Mary was at home when QPS executed the search warrant. As the officers rifled through her designer clothes in search of evidence and creating disarray, Mary said, “He’s a lying son-of-a-bi-atch! He promised he’d quit the coke so we could have a baby”. Is the statement by Mary (1) relevant, (2) admissible, and (3) can the prosecution call Mary to give evidence?

Part D: Now assume that Mary was charged as a co-offender in relation to the drugs charges under the Criminal Code, but she pleaded guilty and received a two-year suspended sentence. Assume that Mary has not been charged with any offences pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld). Are there any further considerations that the judge may need to have regard to?

2 - You are a junior lawyer employed in the litigation section of Brisbane’s top legal firm, Brisbane Law. You are working on two major pieces of related litigation, for your client, Best Wines, Australia’s leading wine manufacturer. Last year, your client terminated the employment of Rose White, its CEO, in the wake of serious allegations made in the media about the accuracy of the grape varietals used in the production of Best Wine products. Following an investigation by ASIC, it has commenced proceedings against Best Wines for false and misleading conduct to the public and shareholders, and Rose White has commenced proceedings for breach of contract/unfair dismissal. Brisbane Law obtained a forensic investigative report to assist with advice about the allegations.

Part of the report, in relation to the accuracy of the varietals used, Page 4 of 4 is very favourable to Best Wine’s interests. However, the second part of the report, in relation to the action taken by Best Wines against Rose White, is unfavourable and concludes that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Rose White. Media interest in what has become known as “Grape-Gate” led to Best Wines making public disclosures to both the Australian Securities Exchange, and the media, referencing the forensic investigative report, and relying upon its conclusions to justify the dismissal of Rose White, and to reassure the public and shareholders that it had not engaged in any misrepresentation about the grape varietals it is using. ASIC seeks disclosure of the report that Brisbane Law, obtained to assist in giving advice to Best Wine. Will Best Wine need to disclose the report? What are the issues? If it needs to disclose the report, will it need to disclose the entire report, or just the part that relates to the ASIC proceedings?

3 - Hearsay evidence, or relationship evidence, particularly that which reveals a propensity to engage in offences of a domestic violence nature, can have serious consequences for a Defendant at trial. Conversely, where such evidence is excluded, it can be difficult for the jury to put the alleged offence into its broader context. Comment critically on the way in which such evidence, including the giving of such evidence by victims, is handled pursuant to the Evidence Act 1977.

This Law Assignment Help has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Papers. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.