Ex-lawyer Pat Lennon claims he was victim of police ‘stitch up’ as he appeals finding of guilt

A disgraced former lawyer claims he was the victim of an old fashioned “load up” by police after he was found guilty of possessing ice as he appeals his finding of guilt.

Disgraced lawyer Pat Lennon says he was the victim of a police “frame up” after he was nabbed with 11g of ice in South Yarra in July 2020. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

Embattled ex-lawyer Patrick Lennon believes he has been the victim of an “old fashioned stitch up” by police as he appeals being found guilty of possessing ice.

Lennon appealed the verdict in the County Court on December 5 after he was handed a 12-month good behaviour bond without conviction by Magistrate Brett Sonnet in January.

Lennon and former client Hava Brandman were sitting in the lawyer’s Jaguar outside Vogue apartments in South Yarra when she pointed out an unmarked police car driving opposite them in July 2020.

Police did a U-turn before flashing their lights behind them, and Lennon was subsequently charged with possessing 11g of ice.

Lennon’s lawyer, Dermott Dann KC told the court that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to search his client, and that would form the basis of the appeal.

Mr Dann also told the court the two police officers – detective Senior Constable Khuong Tran and detective Senior Constable Ash Janiu had corroborated their evidence, before he told the court Lennon may have been the victim of a police stitch up.

“It has all the hallmarks of an old fashioned stitch up, a load up, a frame up,” Mr Dann said.

Mr Dann also told Judge Gregory Lyon that both police officer’s evidence was “completely unsatisfactory” while he labelled the evidence of Ms Brandman, the witness, as “atrocious”.

Pat Lennon is appealing being found guilty of possessing ice. Picture: David Crosling

It was heard in court that police searched Lennon on the basis he was in an area of high drug trafficking, was “fidgety” and was out late at night during the Covid-19 lockdowns.

Mr Dann also referred to a $20 note used as evidence by police which was “rolled up in a tight cylinder”, but noted they had failed to photograph or seize the note.

Judge Lyon remarked that in his time on the bench he did not know a way a note could remain rolled up without a form of glue keeping it together.

Mr Dann ultimately told His Honour he was looking at “not only a reckless mistake, but a concerted effort to justify an illegal, improper search”.

Prosecutor Dr Jason Harkess told the court the two detectives’ evidence differed, meaning “it probably isn’t a stitch up because they have not got all their facts in alignment”.

“It’s inevitable there will be differences of account... It’s an imperfect body of evidence,” Dr Harkess told the court.

Dr Harkess said Sen Constable Janiu, who appeared behind him in the courtroom, was an honest witness, and that the idea it was a police stitch up was a “giant leap to make”.

Lennon’s defence argued that he may have been on the wrong end of a police “stitch up”. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

He also argued that the burden of a search being executed unlawfully fell on Lennon as the accused man.

Mr Dann told the court that the defence rejected the idea Sen Constable Janiu was a good witness just because he may have been a more reliable witness than his partner or Ms Brandman.

Mr Dann submitted the prosecution’s case was “dysfunctional and haphazard”.

His Honour told the court “I don’t consider Detective Janiu’s evidence to be appalling”.

While the matter is at the lower end of criminal offending, Judge Lyon said “even matters at the lower end can be of the utmost importance to the person against whom the allegation is made”.

Judge Lyon will hand down his verdict on December 12.