Defence lawyer Mark Pettingill yesterday told a drugs trial jury that he was "terrified'' that Damon Kujal Simons could be convicted on the basis of a five-second-look by a Policeman.

And he said Police evidence "stretches credulity'' and asked jurors if there was some "risk of mistake'' against Simons, who was arrested hours after a Narcotics officer saw a man escape from Number 11, King's Gate Lane, Pembroke, on February 12, 1999.

But Crown counsel Larry Mussenden said Simons and Jamel Tito Smith were "caught in the act'' of a "bagging operation'' behind a double locked door in a tiny studio apartment that day and were guilty of possession of heroin.

Simons and Smith, 22, of West Park Lane, are jointly charged with possessing 19.98 grams of heroin with intent to supply, obstructing Police and possessing drug equipment.

The heroin is allegedly worth $137,875 if divided up and sold on the streets.

Simons, 23, of First Avenue, also denies possession of 21.1 grams of cocaine with intent to supply.

The alleged drug processing Police interrupted was taking place in a next door neighbour and family friend's apartment while she was at work.

Mr. Pettingill paid scant attention to the cocaine charge against Simons, focussing on his identification by Special Police Constable/Customs officer Timothy Hayward.

He suggested the jury put themselves in Simons' shoes and "sit there and sit there in probably abject horror'' that an alleged exchange of glances between officer Hayward and Simons could land the "regular citizen'' in court.

"I find it terrifying,'' he added. "Five seconds of identification. Can you identify officer Hayward now? But there is a contradiction of the evidence of Police that you have heard that they've undermined their credibility.'' Mr. Pettingill asked why Customs Officer Hayward "tied everything in a knot'' and why his statement did not include how he identified Simons.

Mocking the tone of an experienced Police officer giving testimony, he added: "He jumped and ran staggering across the concrete pad, dropping the bag and escaped.

"I implore you to look at what Police said here with what they said in February, 1999,'' Mr. Pettingill continued. "All I beg of you is to do your job. It's easy to get up in court and say `it's this man'. It's easy!'' He also used the analogy of the canary which went missing after it was left in a room with a cat -- often used by Chief Justice Austin Ward to show circumstantial evidence.

But Mr. Pettingill said this case was different because there were two "cats''.

"Which one ate the bird? We don't know. There is evidence that two people were there to eat lunch,'' Mr. Pettingill concluded. "Even if it is just one, he's a bit dopey to have stuck around.

"You have to be satisfied on the evidence that they possessed jointly with an intent to supply,'' he added. "My friend (Mr. Mussenden) would say that because its all over the place, they possessed it.

"The law says, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that you can't blame both `cats' in this situation, as annoying as it might be.'' Mr. Mussenden said the men had a "common purpose'' and said they locked the apartment because they "had knowledge of the drugs'' there.

"That's a lot of product and it was a trail of evidence from the table all the way to that running toilet,'' he said. "Picture it in your mind. It's a small studio, the doors are double locked and the Police are banging on the door.

"How did these drugs end up on the floor? They got that way because the defendants are exercising care, custody and control over the drugs to get them to the toilet.

"They had common purpose in possession and the prosecution has proven its case that there was a bagging operation in progress,'' Mr. Mussenden continued. "They were caught in the act. The door was bolted twice. Why activate both locks just to eat lunch?'' The trial continues this morning with Smith's lawyer Elizabeth Christopher giving her summation.