Legal question

[The '47ers]

So old mate who sold the "drugs" to the Kiwis appeared in court y'day after allegedly selling cocaine. So why weren't the other 2 in court if their so confident it was drugs!!! We keep hearing about wanting to get all the facts, due process, etc etc but they seem confident enough to run old mate through?!

 

[KOMORI]

It's the vibe..

 

[Leho]

My understanding is when it comes to narcotics a supplier is the ones they are after and the crimes commission will get involved if there is decent quantities involved this is when all assets are to be held until the accused is able to prove what was bought ligitmently not with monies from dealing so to answer your question I'm not sure lol

 

[midsteyne]

news had it charged with possession for the dealer,the kiwis had already used it allegedly caught on ccvt but wernt in possession but,could be done by the nrl for bringing the game into disrepute if they were not tested in time

 

[Chip and Chase]

He was charged with possession of drugs as they found physical evidence on his person. What he sold the other two and what they allegedly inhaled up their nostrils is purely speculation - no physical evidence just circumstantial. They'd never be able to prove what it was without some sort of admission of guilt from the players.

 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

there'd be all kinds of fine print. from the little information presented he was shown to take the money, and by the sounds of it, prepped it up for them to take which was seen on CCTV. so the two never technically took "posession" of it, just purchased and devoured. Cops will always want the bigger charge, which will always be posession / trafficking / supplying over someone purchasing small amounts as all it ends up in is a warning / waste of court time. if this guy was carrying, he is who they want the most.

 

[mozgrame]

Maybe the law wants the two players to testify against the supplier.

 

[mozgrame]

It's the vibe..

I love The Castle!!

They say in solicitor circles that a person that represents themselves in court has a fool for a client. It could be worse. You could be represented by Dennis. lol

 

[MadMarcus]

Maybe the law wants the two players to testify against the supplier.

The 2 players will testify that he sold them sherbert, which is commonly ingested through the nose for dental hygiene reasons. It's just a coincidence that he happened to get caught with some coke on him. If the players had known he was into drugs they never would have socialised with him.

Todd will lap up that excuse.

 

[mozgrame]

The 2 players will testify that he sold them sherbert, which is commonly ingested through the nose for dental hygiene reasons. It's just a coincidence that he happened to get caught with some coke on him. If the players had known he was into drugs they never would have socialised with him.

Todd will lap up that excuse.

Was it a colour camera they were filmed with? An old Maori trick I learned years ago to cure sinus was to sniff cayenne powder. White cayenne powder is hard to find, but some blokes around the ACT are believed to be able to get it.

If your sinus is bad, to the point that you can't even concentrate on your job (or footy) you'd happily pay whatever a buyer wanted, and you'd find relief wherever you could.

Now THAT'S an excuse!

https://www.earthclinic.com/sinus-infection/cayenne-pepper.html

 

[manlyfan76]

They'd never be able to prove what it was without some sort of admission of guilt from the players.

Are saying the NZ players would not tell the whole truth?

 

[Loobs]

The answer to any legal question is always Tasmanian Dams...

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

so the two never technically took "posession" of it, just purchased and devoured

Hmm, not really! They took legal possession but then they destroyed the evidence 😉

Cops will always want the bigger charge, which will always be posession / trafficking / supplying over someone purchasing small amounts as all it ends up in is a warning / waste of court time. if this guy was carrying, he is who they want the most.

Police charge people all the time with possession of what you might call 'small amounts'. Cannabis is treated a little differently in the ACT, but for other prohibited drugs the maximum penalty for possession includes 2 years jail (although most people get a fine only).

 

[manlyfan76]

Hmm, not really! They took legal possession but then they destroyed the evidence 😉


Police charge people all the time with possession of what you might call 'small amounts'. Cannabis is treated a little differently in the ACT, but for other prohibited drugs the maximum penalty for possession includes 2 years jail (although most people get a fine only).

And if they are kiwi they can be deported!