A man convicted of smuggling cannabis and cocaine into Bermuda made an unsuccessful bid to keep a jury from hearing evidence about a police interview in which he confessed to the offences.

Counsel for Alexta Gill argued in a pre-trial hearing that the interview evidence was unfairly prejudicial — with Gill claiming he had not been properly cautioned, felt threatened and was told to lie.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe found, in a written decision, that the evidence should be allowed, stating that the defendant’s shifting story defied common sense.

Mr Justice Wolffe said: “In every aspect, the defendant’s evidence was inconsistent, nonsensical and illogical, and his evidence bore the hallmarks of someone who was weaving a web of untruths.”

Gill, a 31-year-old Guyanese national who lived in Canada, was charged with importing $676,736 of cannabis and liquid cocaine into Bermuda on March 4, 2023 after flying to the island from Toronto.

While a 2024 trial ended abruptly after an outbreak of Covid-19, a second trial concluded last month with the jury finding Gill guilty of both charges by a unanimous verdict.

A pair of recorded police interviews conducted in the days after Gill’s arrest served as key evidence in the second trial.

During his first interview, Gill denied any knowledge of the drugs discovered in his suitcase.

However, in the second, he claimed that he had been threatened by someone named “Andre” over an unpaid debt.

Gill told the officers that in response to the death threats, he agreed to bring a suitcase with him to Bermuda.

During the trial, Gill told the jury that the story was a lie he had manufactured in an effort to be released from custody after receiving instructions from Bruce Swan, the on-call duty counsel brought in to assist him during the interview.

Before the trial began, Gill sought to have the interviews omitted from evidence.

A written ruling on the application, published online, stated that Gill initially argued that the evidence was unfair because he had not been given the counsel of his choice, that he did not receive legal advice from Mr Swan and that he was not properly cautioned.

However, during the hearing the application “dramatically transformed to include other theretofore unknown but far more serious pillars”, including claims that the officers made him “scared and traumatised” and he had been advised to lie by Mr Swan.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Wolffe found that Gill was properly informed of his rights, that there had been nothing improper about Mr Swan attending to assist him and that the defendant had ample time to consult with the lawyer before, during and after both interviews.

The judge also found that it was likely Mr Swan gave Gill sufficient and competent legal advice, stating the defendant’s shifting complaints “did not make any sense whatsoever”.

Mr Justice Wolffe added that the allegation that Mr Swan had told Gill to lie was unbelievable and the story he gave police before conferring with Mr Swan was “inconsistent, confusing and nonsensical”.

“I would find it unbelievable indeed for any criminal defence lawyer, no matter their calibre, to advise their client that they would get bail if they lied about actually committing an offence,” he said.

“It is certainly correct that a person may lie and in doing so send the police on a wild-goose chase. The reward for this may be bail, but it is by no means automatic if the person actually admits that they committed the offence.

“More likely than not, a criminal law attorney would advise their client to say nothing to the police but that if they wished to admit to the commission of a crime then they should do so truthfully.”

Mr Justice Wolffe also found that Gill was properly cautioned by police before both interviews, and that he participated without threats or coercion.

While Gill alleged that the tone and content of the questioning frightened him, Mr Justice Wolffe branded the claim “errant nonsense”.

“I had the opportunity of viewing the audio/visual recordings of both interviews and I have read the transcripts,” he said.

“There is absolutely nothing in the demeanour of the police officers or in the content of their questions which would remotely suggest that they were in anyway whatsoever intimidating or harsh towards the defendant.

“They were calm and measured in the way that they spoke and indeed they were quite respectful of the defendant.

“It is therefore obvious to me that the defendant threw in his unsubstantiated allegations of coercion or threats in an attempt to have the interviews excluded by any means necessary. His attempt fell woefully flat.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers