Police officers accidentally tainted criminal evidence with gunshot residue, a defence lawyer has suggested to the jury at a trial for an attempted gun murder.

Lawyer Marc Daniels also charged that a police firearms officer was giving inaccurate information at the trial of Blaine Simmons.

The 19-year-old Southampton athlete is accused of trying to murder Somerset resident Lo’Torean Durrant in a shooting on the night of March 19 last year.

Mr Durrant, now 23, hid in bushes after being shot through the body after he arrived at a taxi outside his house.

The gunman, described as a dark figure whose face was concealed by a “Scream” horror movie mask, appeared from a staircase outside Mr Durrant’s home on Scott’s Hill Road.

The Supreme Court heard that Mr Durrant was pursued up the hill by the gunman, who shot him once as he tried to get back into the cab.

The car’s passenger door was also struck by the bullet and the driver fled.

Mr Durrant has told the jury that he “never looked back” and didn’t catch sight of the gunman’s face.

The court heard that he also recalled expressing sympathy for Mr Simmons after his arrest, telling a friend that he wasn’t sure whether the suspect, who he knew from primary school, had or hadn’t shot at him.

The victim said he’d never had any arguments with Mr Simmons in the past but that he’d been approached aggressively prior to the shooting, including getting punched by a man who accused him of belonging to the Parkside gang.

The Somerset resident has told the court that he spent some of his childhood in an area of Hamilton that later became associated with the gang.

Yesterday’s proceedings centred on the possible contamination of key evidence with gunshot residue, or GSR — the cloud of metallic particles ejected by firearms.

Mr Daniels grilled police firearms expert Julian Brassington on the “strong possibility” that GSR from the taxi driver or his vehicle might have spread to the hands of officers later involved in the arrest of his client, after the “distraught” cabbie drove from the scene of the shooting to Somerset Police Station.

Mr Daniels clashed with Pc Brassington over their differing accounts of the sequence of events that led up to Mr Simmons’ arrest — a short time after midnight — when he was apprehended by officers outside a Sandys condo complex.

Pc Brassington, who met and spoke with the taxi driver at the station shortly after the shooting, insisted that he hadn’t touched the driver’s person at any point.

He also told the court that he didn’t have any contact with the bullet-struck car, which was covered over with paper and tape by another officer.

“I am very aware of the cross-contamination issue,” Pc Brassington told the court. “Because there was a hole in the taxi, I was very mindful of my surroundings. I didn’t want to have any contact whatsoever with the driver.”

Mr Simmons was traced to the scene of the condo complex by the licence number of a car in which he’d been given a lift earlier that night from Acacia Lane area of Somerset.

A bystander, worried by reports of a shooting in the vicinity, had reported the car’s details to police after observing two dark-clothed men, carrying helmets, hurrying along the lane shortly after sirens came from the scene of the shooting.

After referring the taxi driver to a senior officer, Pc Brassington was dispatched to the address to which the car was registered.

He found the vehicle parked there and kept watch over the scene.

The court heard that another car pulled up at the driveway and a man, identified as Mr Simmons’ brother, jumped out.

Questioned by police, the driver turned out to be the mother of the accused, who said she’d come to collect her son.

However, according to Pc Brassington, Mr Simmons’ nervous demeanour and evasive replies to questions raised suspicions.

Mr Daniels told the officer there was a variance between his version of events and that of Mr Simmons, who was described as “sweating profusely” when questioned.

The defence’s version of events is that Mr Simmons came to the residence to call his mother, because his phone wasn’t working.

Pc Brassington said he’d been told by the suspect that he’d come to stay at a friend’s house and found out that he couldn’t, so he’d called his mother.

“At this point, you then snatched the cell phone from Mr Simmons,” the defence charged, to which the officer responded: “At no point did I touch Mr Simmons or his phone.”

According to the defence, Mr Simmons told police he had lotion on his skin, but Pc Brassington insisted the suspect had been sweating heavily and never mentioned “lotion or oils”.

Pc Brassington said the suspect had told him he’d taken a shower at his friend’s house, which Mr Simmons then said was his cousin’s house, saying he wanted to shower before going to work.

Mr Simmons was carrying a tinted visor when he encountered police but the defence account of why he had it differed from that given by Pc Brassington.

“Mr Simmons fits the profile, doesn’t he?” Mr Daniels asked the officer. “He’s young and he’s black.”

Pc Brassington denied that any kind of racial profiling had caused him to single Mr Simmons out.

The trial continues today, and is expected to run through next week.