Lawyer X Case: Additional Lawyers May Be Needed To Prove Compensation For Victims

The need for Lawyer X Case prepared by a Lawyer Firm in Defence Housing Authority, Karachi is most likely to arise if your child, relative or friend faces charges of offences such as murder, rape, kidnapping or any other serious crime. If convicted, these professionals will need the services of a highly experienced lawyer who has the expertise in these matters. The criminal lawyers will prepare relevant documents for trial and stand for you in court representing your best interests. It is important that you find the right lawyer to represent your case from the start as there are many lawyers who may not be well versed with the legal issues surrounding your particular case. When considering hiring a Lawyer X case, it is important to consider the credentials, experience and professionalism of the lawyer.

There are many instances where people have had their convictions quashed due to the help of a Lawyer Firm. There was the case of Faruk Orman, who was arrested on suspicion of involvement in a heroin deal. After he was taken to a police station under the remand and after being charged, his conviction quashed by the High Court in December 2021. However, the prosecution failed to show any DNA test evidence against him which was required to prove his innocence. He then applied to the Sindhudargah and was awarded bail by the court.

During his bail, Faruk Orman was allowed to visit his family and take care of his children. In the meantime his wife and two kids had moved out. When his wife complained about not being provided with the children, the prosecution presented no DNA evidence to prove her claims. The Sindhudargah found the situation and ordered the arrest of Faruk Orman on the suspicion of drug trafficking. He was taken to the Enforcement Department, Karachi and was charged with trafficking heroin. His trial began at the Federal Prosecution Office and he was found guilty and was sentenced to a five year jail term along with a fine.

The verdict prompted the Sindhudargah to appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. After deliberation and argument the Sindhudargah asked the court to dismiss its appeal citing lack of evidence and inability to prove the case. However, the court did not dismiss the appeal citing that the prosecution lawyer had not presented any valid explanation to the court as to why the conviction should be quashed. The appeals court then ordered a retrial, which led to the lawyer Orman challenging the verdict at the Appeal Court.

On 25 July 2021, the Appeals Court delivered its ruling in the case of Faruk Orman. The Appeals Court held that the trial lawyer had failed to establish a reasonable chain of evidence and that there were chances that the crime could have been committed by someone other than Faruk Orman. The Court further ordered a retrial. The Appeals Court set aside the two convictions stating that it was not guilty or innocent before hearing the full facts.

On 6 September, a three-judge Appeals Court panel unanimously found that the prosecution lawyer had failed to establish any reasonable chain of evidence against defendant. Therefore, the charges against him were quashed. The court did not set aside the second charge against defendant, namely that he had procured the services of Nicolo Giordano through the sham Special Inspector. Instead, the three judges confirmed the guilt of the Special Inspector and acquitted defendant of all the charges. The court however deferred judgment as to the validity of the investigation into the alleged offences until it could review the outcome of the retrial.

The CJA also found that the Special Inspector had not presented any report establishing that the offences had in any way occurred on or between the dates of his appointment as Special Inspector and the date of his arrest. The CJA found that the offences could only have occurred on the dates when the accused had become a member of the police force. The CJA noted that this was apart from the fact that the complainants had been in receipt of service for three years between the dates of their complaints and the date of the arrest. The CJA also found that the complainants had not been informed that they would be expected to produce documents relating to the complaints before a meeting with the special investigator. The CJA found that this conduct by the police undermined the reliability of the criminal justice system and caused the delay in the criminal justice system that was caused by the conduct of the Special Inspector.

Following the conviction of Mr X, the South Australian government introduced legislation that extended the powers of the SIA to include use of criminal lawmaking powers to detain someone for the duration of a criminal justice system inquiry. This included the powers of the SIA to detain an individual if the person was suspected of assisting the unlawful presence in Australia of a person that the police had reasonable cause to believe was residing in the country. Mr X’s lawyers argued that this amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment under the common law and the s Bribery Act 2021. The High Court found that the legislation did not unconstitutionally strip the man of his rights to freedom of speech and expression, but the court did not go as far as to enjoin the police from arresting Mr X if they thought that he might be assisting the unlawful activities of a co-accused person.

About the Author

You may also like these