Articles

Former NRL player Jamil Hopoate has been arrested and faces large commercial drug supply charges after police allegedly uncovered a drug importation scheme involving half a tonne of cocaine, worth $155 million.

The consignment was alleged to have originated in the United Kingdom and travelled to Sydney where it was intercepted by Australian Border Force (ABF) officers.

Hopoate was allegedly apprehended by officers after running away from them and throwing a backpack into a backyard.

He is currently bail refused and remains in custody.

Large Commercial Drug Supply Allegations

ABF officers acted on intelligence information that suggested a consignment was due to arrive in Sydney from England.

Police claim that 26-year-old Hopoate was seen accessing a van that contained the drugs on the morning of 18^th May 2021 at Botany, in Sydney’s south-east. He then left in a car with a woman.

The facts sheet alleges that officers attempted to intercept the car before it took off, however the driver lead them on a police pursuit through the streets of Botany.

As police approached the vehicle, they said that Leanne Mafoa – the driver – reversed at speed before Hopoate exited the car and threw a backpack into a nearby yard.

Upon his arrest he was charged with large commercial drug supply.

A 33-year-old female from Collaroy was also arrested and charged with large commercial drug supply and a weapons offence.

In addition, a 28-year-old man from Minto in Sydney’s west was also arrested and also charged with drug supply.

Bail Application for Large Commercial Drug Supply Charges

At Central Local Court, Mr Hopoate’s lawyer for bail applications said the drug supply charges related to only 8 kilograms of cocaine.

However, it was suggested that the substance was actually an “innocent material” that merely looked like cocaine. ABF officers had substituted this substance for the cocaine while monitoring the consignment.

It was said this meant the prosecution’s “non-existent” case had no prospect of conviction.

“Very simply, to have possession of the prohibited drug under the [Drugs Misuse and Trafficking] Act, he’s got to have the drug. He doesn’t,” Hopoate’s criminal lawyer said.

Further, it was argued that there was no suggestion of criminal conspiracy, nor evidence of encrypted communication with those suspected to be involved with the consignment.

The court heard that as an off-contract player, Jamil Hopoate had only been able to pick up “bits and pieces” of cash and work. However, his father John Hopoate had offered to supervise his son and work as a panel beater if granted bail.

His brother, Will Hopoate, also offered to put up equity in a property as security and act as a surety. to the value of some $50,000.

The court also heard that people with a high profile in rugby league were “likely to be discriminated against in jail”.

However, Magistrate Philip Stewart refused the bail application and did not accept the arguments put forward by Hopoate’s criminal defence lawyers.

He said there were clear inferences available, such as that the backpack that was thrown over the fence before he was arrested contained actual drugs, rather than an “inert substance”.

Mr Hopoate, appearing via video link, waved and smiled to his family before he learned of the decision.

The case returns to court in July.

Jamil Hopoate is the son of former Manly player John Hopoate and brother of Bulldogs player Will Hopoate was sacked from the Brisbane Broncos at the end of last year.

Drug Supply Charges

The definition of drug supply is contained in Section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) which explains that if an Accused knowingly takes part in the process of supplying, or agreeing to supply a prohibited drug, they can be found guilty of this offence.

Police have to prove a number of elements of a drug supply charge beyond reasonable doubt before a person can be convicted.

First, they must prove that the Accused engaged in the supply of a substance, or knowingly took part in the supply of a substance.

Secondly, they must prove that the substance was a prohibited drug or that the Accused believed it was a prohibited drug.

The following defences to drug supply can also be used:

1. Illegal search: If Police found the drug due to an unlawful search. This may be due to Police not having reasonable grounds to search you, or any warrant(s) they have used being improper or defective
2. The Accused had no intention to supply
3. The Accused did not know they were in possession of the drug
4. Carey defence: The Accused was holding the drug on behalf of another person and intended to give it back to that person (Carey (1990) 50 A Crim R 163)
5. The substance was not a prohibited drug, AND the Accused did not believe, nor did they hold it out as a prohibited drug
6. Duress: You were forced to commit the drug supply
7. The prohibited drug was for personal use
8. The weight of the drug is not correct. For example, the amount is less than the large commercial drug supply quantity.

If you or a loved one has been accused of an offence involving drugs, it is important to obtain advice from a drug lawyer who has successfully defended hundreds of persons charged with these offences. Call Astor Legal on (02) 7804 2823. Or, you can email info@astorlegal.com.au.

We have offices throughout the Sydney metropolitan area including Sydney CBD, Parramatta and Liverpool. We can arrange a conference for you with a Law Society Accredited Specialist for drug charges.

Deemed Supply

Section 29 of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking Act) 1985 (NSW) sets out:

“A person who has in his or her possession an amount of a prohibited drug which is not less than the traffickable quantity of the prohibited drug shall, for the purposes of this Division, be deemed to have the prohibited drug in his or her possession for supply, unless—

(a)  the person proves that he or she had the prohibited drug in his or her possession otherwise than for supply…”

This section makes it clear that if a person is found with an amount of a prohibited drug that is greater than the ‘traffickable quantity’, the Court can assume that they had the drug for the purposes of drug supply.

It is then for the Accused to rebut this presumption on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must prove that it was more likely than not, that they had the drug for a purpose other than drug supply.

This other purpose is usually ‘personal use’.

The traffickable quantity for cannabis is 300 grams.