Prosecution offer no evidence in drugs case

Katrina Walcott was instructed by Jeffrey Muhammad of Amosu Robinshaw Solicitors to represent HW. 

HW was charged with possession with intent to, and concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. The drug he was alleged to supply was crack cocaine. He accepted possession of the crack cocaine and denied intention to supply. 

Months after HW’s arraignment, the prosecution produced a further SFR and amended indictment which included counts in relation to the supply of heroin as well as crack cocaine. Katrina challenged the SFR on the basis that the exhibit tested, which suggested HW was in possession of multiple wraps of heroin and cocaine, was wholly incorrect. She emphasised the fact that a witness statement made clear HW was in possession of one small wrap of crack cocaine, and no other drug.

Despite multiple requests for clarification and further disclosure, the Crown proceeded to trial in respect of both the supply of heroin and cocaine. 

On the first day of trial, further requests for disclosure were made by the defence. Subsequent disclosure revealed that, due to police error, two drug exhibits had been bagged and sent together for testing under the same exhibit name. One of the exhibits consisted of the one wrap of crack cocaine seized from the defendant, and the other exhibit contained multiple wraps of both heroin and cocaine, which related to a wholly different case and defendant. The SFR the prosecution sought to rely on concerned the latter exhibit, and was therefore incorrect.

Following this revelation, the prosecution offered no evidence against HW in respect of the supply of both crack cocaine and heroin.