A cruise ship worker involved in a plot to smuggle $53,000 worth of cocaine into Bermuda has lost an appeal of his jail sentence.

Jamaican national Delroy Duncan was imprisoned for nine years in June, 2012, after his co-conspirator, Clarence James — a fellow member of staff on the Enchantment of the Seas — was searched by Customs officers as he left the ship for Dockyard just before midnight on August 8, 2011.

James, a native of St Vincent, had 219 grams of the drug hidden in his sneakers. He told police that Duncan had been behind the conspiracy, but both men ultimately received the same prison terms — later reduced to seven-and-a-half years. Each had accused the other in court of masterminding the plot.

Two damning pieces of evidence helped to convict Duncan: James was in possession of Duncan’s cellular phone when he was caught — and a piece of paper in Duncan’s cabin had a local number written on it, the number used by the would-be receiver of the drugs in Bermuda.

A check of the phone showed a text sent to that local number just before James left the ship.

The message read: “My boy coming out in a shart [sic] time. Stay close.”

Duncan’s original counsel had attempted a no-case submission halfway through the trial in Magistrates’ Court, and defence lawyer Marc Daniels sought to challenge the decision by Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo allowing the trial to go ahead.

James had told police he was given the shoes and drugs, as well as the cell phone, by Duncan. Mr Daniels told the court that his client had readily accepted that the phone was his, but that it was a more powerful phone that he had loaned to his fellow worker.

Mr Daniels argued that the Crown had produced no evidence to show that the phone had been in Duncan’s possession when the text was sent, or during any of the numerous earlier phone calls made to the Bermuda number.

Duncan had tried to appeal the sentence in December of 2012, but in his dismissal of that appeal in January of 2013, Chief Justice Ian Kawaley shot down the accused man’s explanation of why he had the incriminating cell phone number in his possession.

Duncan had said he had loaned the phone to James, and had written the unfamiliar number down upon getting the phone back, in case James asked for it. Mr Justice Kawaley called that explanation “incoherent and inherently unbelievable”.

However, Mr Daniels argued that the Crown had produced no tangible evidence conclusively linking Duncan to the texts and calls made from the phone, and said it had been common practice for the phone to be loaned.

Court of Appeal President Justice Edward Zacca, considering the case with Justices Sir Scott Baker and Sir Anthony Evans, ultimately agreed with Mr Justice Kawaley’s finding that Duncan’s explanation for having the Bermuda number in his possession was fundamentally implausible.

The Justices also agreed that the wording of the text message, particularly the use of “my boy”, showed that James could not have been the one who sent it. Duncan’s appeal of his conviction was dismissed.