A man charged with possessing nearly $1 million of heroin told a Supreme Court jury that he was not living at the address where incriminating evidence was found during a police raid.

Winston Paynter, 42, instead insisted that he had been living with the mother of one of his children for several years – and that his cousin frequently stayed at the one-bedroom apartment that Mr Paynter rented on North Shore Road in Devonshire.

But that claim was questioned by the prosecution, who alleged that Mr Paynter was trying to distance himself from the scene of the crime.

Mr Paynter, who was employed as a technician for a refrigeration company, was driving his work van when he was stopped by police on mobile patrol one afternoon in April 2019.

Officers searched the vehicle and discovered a manilla envelope inside a plastic bag at the back of the van.

Mr Paynter was arrested on suspicion of being in possession of a controlled drug and officers searched his apartment later that day.

That search unearthed a quantity of heroin, a stash of sleeping pills, a cutting board containing traces of cannabis, and digital scales.

Six rounds of ammunition were also found in a shoebox in a kitchen cabinet.

In court yesterday, Mr Paynter insisted that on the evening before he was arrested, he had returned to his North Shore apartment after work because his cousin wanted to borrow some work tools from his van.

Mr Paynter said that his cousin – who moved into the property “after having some issues getting into mischief” – was home with several friends when he arrived.

Questioned by defence lawyer Marc Daniels, Mr Paynter said that he had left the van unlocked at his property and then gone to his partner’s house, also in Devonshire, where he spent the night.

Mr Paynter insisted that he had no knowledge of any of the items seized by police from his home.

But Alan Richards, for the Crown, raised a number of questions about Mr Paynter’s claims.

He pointed out that, when interviewed by police, he repeatedly gave his address as North Shore Road, Devonshire, rather than his partner’s address.

Mr Richards also questioned why Mr Paynter had kept his passport at the property if he was no longer living there.

He said: “I am going to suggest to you that you are making this up in an attempt to explain the circumstances in which you find yourself. You are inventing the participation of your cousin as an excuse.”

Mr Paynter replied: “I am suggesting it could have been him or the company he was keeping.”

The defendant also denied that he “tossed” the plastic bag containing an envelope into the back of the van when he realised that he was being pulled over by the police.

Mr Richards said: “You placed it in the back and the reason I am suggesting that you did that was because the police were about to find you with what you believed to be a significant quantity of heroin.

Mr Paynter replied: “That’s not correct.”

The trial, before Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe, 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.