A barrister has “unequivocally” denied trying to get a prosecution witness to change his story.

Kamal Worrell, along with co-defendants Devon Hewey and Dujon Reid-Anderson, are accused of persuading Levon Thomas to give false evidence in a shooting trial to prevent the conviction of Mr Hewey.

Mr Worrell, who is representing himself, told jurors he had done nothing wrong in meeting with Mr Thomas before the trial and insisted he was innocent of all charges.

“In relation to the charges I am charged with I am not only not guilty, I am innocent,” he said. “You only have the option of guilty or not guilty. I am telling you I am innocent.

“I did not do what the Crown alleges I have done.

“I would not do it. I would not do it for Mr Hewey and I would not do it for anyone else because the code of conduct is what guides me and I strive to remain true to that.”

Prosecutors say that Mr Thomas was sent threatening messages and promised money to lie under oath.

He has told the Supreme Court that during a meeting with Mr Worrell — which was recorded by Mr Worrell — the lawyer influenced him to change his description of the suspect.

Mr Thomas was also allegedly contacted by Mr Hewey, who promised the witness $3,500 for his testimony.

Taking the stand yesterday afternoon, Mr Worrell explained that he had only come to represent Mr Hewey three weeks before the trial was due to start and confirmed he had met with Mr Thomas a week before that trial.

But he told the court that he had been falsely accused and his name had been smeared.

“Some may think that the mere fact a defence lawyer meets with a prosecution witness, there is something wrong with that,” he said. “That is not the case. There is nothing wrong with talking to a witness.

“I was conducting the defence case as best I could. There is nothing wrong with approaching a witness and asking those questions.

“You can tell from the tone of the meeting there is no intimidation.

“I never thought in 100 years I would have to stand here like this today.”

Mr Worrell told jurors that from the beginning, Mr Thomas’s evidence was neither contradictory nor damaging to his client because he was not able to recognise those responsible for the shooting.

He added: “My involvement in this whole matter, which I hope is born out by the evidence, was simply to conduct myself and the case for Mr Hewey like I would any other.

“I would not think of fabricating anything or inducing, inciting or encouraging someone else to give false evidence before the court.”

All three defendants have denied conspiring to defeat justice and related offences, all of which allegedly took place between July 1 and September 23 last year.

The case continues.