The defence has filed a no-case submission in the trial of Vincentian Glenroy Pierre after the Crown wrapped up its case against the accused drug smuggler yesterday, March 11, 2014. Photo: VINO/File

Pierre pleaded not guilty to charges of illegal entry; supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug; possession of a controlled drug; importation or being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug and unlawful possession of a controlled drug.

Pierre was allegedly discovered along with Ralph James and Adrian Arthur on a boat containing over 500kg of cannabis that had been stuffed in ‘crocus’ bags in all parts of the boat.

The vessel, which one of the officers described as not being sea worthy, had been drifting in the waters for some days near Anegada on October 25, 2012 after it had broken down. The two other men pleaded guilty to similar charges and were sentenced last year.

The court was shown a video recording yesterday of the general state of the vessel the drugs were being transported on as part of the evidence of the Crown’s final witness.

Attorney Patrick Thompson told the court that the centrepiece of the Crown’s case is possession and argued that they had not led any evidence which suggested that the defendant possessed any cannabis.

He stated that Pierre must have had physical custody or control over the cannabis found to prove he had possession of the drug. Mere knowledge of possession of contraband, Thompson told the court, was not evidence of possession. He said the Crown must have shown that there was something more than mere knowledge.

The attorney further argued that this knowledge of the presence of contraband must also be proven.

He also stated that there should be evidence of encouragement or participation or some other evidence that the defendant assumed custody or control of the cannabis found on the ship.

Prinicipal Crown Counsel Tiffany Scatliffe in response argued that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the drugs which implied that he also had control of it. She also argued that he was in close proximity to the drugs and therefore must have had knowledge and an intention to have control over the drugs.

The matter was set for a ruling on the submission on March 26, 2014 by Magistrate Dr Velon L. John.