The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

 THREE men had their two and a half year sentence for possession of $336,000 worth of drugs overturned after a Court of Appeals judge found that there was insubstantial evidence to convict them.

 Justice Indira Charles heard the appeal of Peter Lewis, 49, Andy Glinton, 37, and Collin Russell, 44, on a conviction of possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply.

 While the three appellants initially faced additional charges of conspiracy to possess dangerous drugs with intent to supply, importation of dangerous drugs and conspiracy to import dangerous drugs, these charges were dropped in the magistrate’s court.

 The three were arrested in an apartment on Fire Trail Road after police found 13 crocus sacks and two loose packages containing 336lbs of marijuana, valued at $336,000 on March 10, 2021.

 Following a trial before Magistrate Samuel McKinney, where the appellants maintained their innocence, the trio were convicted and sentenced to two and half years in prison on June 16. While the appellants faced a further fine of $10,000 or an additional six months prison time, Franklyn Emmanuel, the owner of the apartment, had the charges against him dropped.

 In reviewing their case Justice Charles found that the Magistrate did not have enough substantial evidence to convict them for the offence.

  “The only evidence against the appellants is that they each possessed a key to the apartment,” Justice Charles said. “However, the appellants were not the only ones with keys to the apartment. Based on the law, having a key in one’s possession does not make that person ‘an occupier’ for purposes of the DDA. Notably, there was no evidence that personal belongings of any of the appellants were found in the apartment, nor was there any forensic (fingerprint) evidence or surveillance camera capturing any of the appellants entering or exiting the apartment.

 “In the court’s view, additional evidence was necessary before the Magistrate could properly have satisfied himself beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, being concerned together, had the requisite knowledge, control and custody of the drugs. In the circumstances, no evidential burden was placed on the appellants to provide any explanation consistent with their innocence and the Magistrate should have accepted their respective submissions of no case to answer.”

 For these reasons the convictions of the three were quashed and no retrial in the matter was ordered.