A Supreme Court jury heard yesterday that a man deliberately behaved suspiciously on arrival at the airport as part of a plot to smuggle drugs into the island.

Daniel Kitson-Walters, for the Crown, said that Kevin Rousseau, 49, from Toronto, Canada, had accepted that he conspired with others to import and supply cannabis in Bermuda.

Claudisha Charley, 29, who is accused of conspiring with Mr Rousseau and others in April to import and supply almost $1 million worth of the drug, has denied the charges.

The accused, also from Canada, allegedly smuggled 9,262 grams of cannabis into the island on April 3. The drug carried a street value of up to $919,264.

Mr Kitson-Walters said Mr Rousseau pleaded guilty “on the basis that he did not know what drug was being imported or by whom”.

He added: “His sole function was to behave suspiciously and to keep customs officers’ suspicions focused on him.”

Mr Rousseau believed that his behaviour would buy time for “someone else” to retrieve “whatever drugs were being imported” and for it to leave LF Wade International Airport undetected, Mr Kitson-Walters said.

He said Mr Rousseau was “unaware” that a suitcase similar to his was on his flight, and had claimed that he did not know anyone else on the flight from Toronto.

When the accused picked up a suitcase on arrival at the airport, he “genuinely thought” that it was his luggage, the prosecutor added.

When Mr Rousseau reached the secondary customs inspection area with the suitcase, he responded to questions “that he had been told to answer”.

Mr Kitson-Walters said this was to cause “distraction” and “focus suspicion on himself”.

Earlier, Calvin Nhan told the court that he analysed the data retrieved by police from the mobile phones of Mr Rousseau and Ms Charley.

Mr Nhan, a forensic expert for the Crown, said an individual with a phone registered in Toronto had been in touch with Ms Charley and Mr Rousseau on the day the drug was seized by police at the airport.

He told the court that at 12.42pm, a message came through to a number registered in Mr Rousseau’s name asking: “Are you boarded yet?”

At 3.51pm, Mr Rousseau made a call to the Toronto number and sent a message a minute later saying: “This is an Airbnb not a hotel”.

At 3.48pm, a message was sent to Ms Charley asking: “Is everything OK?”

She was messaged later to “go out and look for a black taxi” and told not to stick around the airport terminal.

Other messages told her again to leave the airport, while at 4.23pm, she was asked if everything was all right.

The court heard that Ms Charley was told to “go with the old man” and that she would be given updates.

That evening, a request for updates came to Ms Charley about her accommodation, including the address where she planned to stay.

The two then discussed payment for the accommodation.

Mr Nhan said that at about 10pm, the Toronto-registered caller requested another update from her.

She was also informed that someone was going to pick her up the next day at about 9am.

The following day, shortly before 11am, Ms Charley allegedly sent a message to the individual regarding breakfast, stating that she was hungry.

She was told to travel to a bus stop close to her accommodation and to ask the bus driver for directions to a restaurant at the airport.

At 3.18pm, she asked the individual if she should still go to the airport. About an hour later, she sent a message stating that she was there.

She was told to stay at the airport and she responded: “I am good, BTW”.

Earlier, Detective Sergeant Courtney Downey described extracting data from Mr Rousseau’s and Ms Charley’s phones.

While he was able to get information from both devices, he said his ability to do so from Ms Charley’s phone was limited as he was not provided with its passcode.

Mr Downey added: “Even though you can do extractions, not all files could be decrypted.”

The trial before Puisne Judge Alan Richards continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case