In one of the first local efforts to seize property of a drug dealer, Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner has sent a former postman's sentencing for drug importation to the Supreme Court.

There, a judge will hear prosecutors on whether or not Jason Maurice Smith's assets are to be seized and how long a prison sentence he should receive.

After heated exchanges last week between prosecutors Dorien Taylor and Vinette Graham-Allen and Jason Maurice Smith's lawyer Mark Pettingill, Mr. Warner ruled that the sentence should be handed down by a higher judge.

Under section 59 (b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, lower courts have the power where "it is of the opinion that the defendant is one against whom the Supreme Court may consider making a confiscation order'' to send the sentencing and confiscation case to the higher court.

Mr. Warner granted the application by the Crown after more than 45 minutes of strident argument.

Mr. Pettingill at one point characterised a summary of Smith's assets Mrs.

Graham-Allen had presented as "specious''.

And the lawyers had to be warned about courtroom etiquette of the practice of immediately sitting when another lawyer takes to their feet to speak.

Smith, 30, of Warwick, and a former Southampton postman, pleaded guilty in December to importing 1,296 grams of cannabis on December 16, 1998.

Smith elected to face a magistrate and was first charged summarily in January 1999 with importation, possession with intent to supply and possession of drug equipment.

"The substantive merits of confiscation is not a matter for this court, but certainly whether it should be sent up is a matter for this court,'' Mr.

Warner explained.

In deciding that he would hear arguments about whether it was necessary to remit the case at all, Mr. Warner ruled that he would hear Mr. Pettingill's arguments.

Mr. Pettingill said, holding aloft a printed summary of Smith's alleged assets: "My submission is that it is insufficient for the Crown to bring this and insufficient for this court to act upon it.

"If it is, then it appears it's just for the Crown to make the application to be enough,'' he continued. "This could be anything! Who sent money via Western Union? Who has these accounts? "Worship, we say anyone could have,'' he added. "They don't appear to have taken into account that my client was working at this time. But they can just take away a man's money -- just like that?'' Mr. Pettingill explained that there should be a "direct nexus'' showing a line from drugs to sales to the assets.

"There isn't. And there is no merit to this,'' he added, holding the summary between two fingers and away from his body. "It's frivolous.

"I find it difficult to believe that on the basis of one conviction and not one scintilla of evidence that he benefited from it.'' Mr. Pettingill concluded that to accept the summary without sufficient proof "flies in the face of any type of justice and jurisprudence''.

After much contention, Mrs. Graham-Allen simply stood and said: "We've provided a summary because at this stage of the proceedings Your Worship is called upon to remit if you have formed an opinion, based on that summary.

"It is to assist your worship,'' she added. "We realise that Your Worship could not hear the evidence because you have no jurisdiction to do so.

"We simply must provide some basis upon which you are to do so,'' Mrs.

Graham-Allen concluded.

In coming to his conclusion, Mr. Warner explained that the Proceeds of Crime Act is a "draconian'' way of combating the drug trade because lawmakers "found there was no other way''.