Prosecutors systematically refuted the grounds put forth to quash the convictions of Kirk Roberts and Vincent Alphonso Holder yesterday.

Despite the argument of Roberts' lawyers, Ed Bailey and Frank Phipps QC, that key documentation was not disclosed to the defence, Principal Crown counsel Lloyd Rayney insisted the appellant's defence had access to the statement given by admitted drug runner Heinz Golembeck in March, 2000. The defence said it was only been aware of an earlier interview because of Golembeck's testimony on the stand. Golembeck, who was granted immunity, acted as a key witness.

However, Mr. Rayney quoted numerous passages from the court record to prove the interview had been was used to advance Roberts' case, although he was unsure when this statement was served.

"Whatever material the defence didn't have at the preliminary interview, they received and had it and used it at trial," he said. "The defence had the material at trial and cross examined on it."

Mr. Rayney referred to this "fundamental plank" in the appellant's case as a "simple point" that could be clarified by the court's careful examination of the March and June statements. He advanced his argument that the defence had moved between Golembeck's June, 2001 interviews and his March statement during the trial. And to "put the matter to bed once and for all," Mr. Rayney read from the court record statements used in the defence's cross-examination and taken directly from the March interview.

"You can see from the statements I point out to the court that counsel is going through this document," he said.

Appeals Court President Sir James Astwood agreed it was most unlikely the defence did not possess the March document. The statements are quoted verbatim, he said.

Mr. Rayney continued: "Clearly the substance of the case must now fall away because they relied heavily on these documents."

Other grounds presented by the defence were handled in similar manner.

Mr. Rayney pointed to the court's record of trial judge Norma Wade-Miller's final address to the jury in advising them to carefully consider the testimony given. "She doesn't skirt around the issue," he said. She pointed out that the defence urged that the evidence had been tainted and noted while the Department of Public Prosecutions may have taken a practical approach in granting immunities, to consider whether those who had given testimony were actually "witnesses of truth", he said.

In response to the defence's plea that the appellents were denied their rights when preliminary inquests at Magistrates' Court were suspended, Mr. Rayney pointed to established legislation, privileging the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over the lower court.

And in Holder's bid to repeal charges of conspiracy, Mr. Rayney argued that Holder accompanied Golembeck in transporting the more than 200 pounds of cannabis to Bermuda.

The Crown's defence changed hands, when using the "authorities" put forth by the defence, specifically a document presented to the court by Holder's laywer, Peter Farge, junior Crown counsel Shade Subair finished their response to the appellant's charges.

The case, which started on Monday, continues today in the Court of Appeal.