A man accused of smuggling cocaine and cannabis into Bermuda denied lying to the court about his activities on the island as his trial continued yesterday.

When prosecutors accused Alexta Gill of “making up facts” during his time on the stand, Mr Gill responded: “That’s a hard negative.”

He accepted that the version of events he gave the courts differed from what he had previously told police and that not all versions could be true.

Mr Gill, a 31-year-old Guyanese national, has denied charges that he imported cannabis and cocaine into the island on March 4, 2023.

The court heard that he arrived on the island with Jhordan George-Horsford on a flight from Toronto on March 2, but one of their suitcases missed the flight and arrived two days later.

A search of the bag revealed six “bricks” of plant material later confirmed to be 9,472.6 grams of cannabis, and a bottle of whiskey, which was found to contain liquid cocaine, from which 812.4g of the controlled drug was extracted.

Mr Gill was arrested and, during a police interview, said that he had agreed to bring a suitcase to the island for someone named “Andre” to clear a debt after receiving death threats.

On Monday, he told the jury that he had made up the story in an effort to get bail because he did not think officers believed his previous statements that he knew nothing about the drugs.

While the court previously heard that police had searched Mr Gill’s hotel room on the evening of March 4 and seized a blue suitcase and a duffel bag, Mr Gill told the court he did not recall noticing the suitcase was missing when in the room the next day.

Under cross-examination by Khadija Beddeau, for the Crown, Mr Gill said that the duffel bag was still in the room on March 5, although he accepted that the police witness had not been challenged on the seizure of the bag the previous day.

The defendant also maintained that on March 4 and 5 he and Ms George-Horsford had taken a taxi between the Fourways Restaurant and Inn and Devil’s Hole to buy snacks at a bulk goods store.

He said that he was unaware of any other grocery stores and that no taxi drivers or hotel receptionists who called the taxi for him had mentioned that there were shops that were closer.

Throughout his cross-examination, Mr Gill also maintained that he was unaware that he was not required to answer questions during his police interview.

While he accepted that officers had told him he could answer questions “if he wished”, he said he interpreted that as meaning that he had to speak.

He said he still thought he had to answer questions in his second police interview despite telling officers during that interview: “I don’t have to talk unless I wish to talk.”

Mr Gill told the court: “If I knew it was my right not to answer any questions, I wouldn’t have answered any questions.”

He also said that he did not understand what the officers meant when they said that the interviews could be “submitted into evidence”, but he accepted that he had not asked the officers or his counsel what the phrase meant.

Mr Gill said he needed to speak to his lawyer in his first interview because he did not know what was meant by “controlled drugs”, stating that the only drugs he knew were pharmaceutical drugs and that he understood that importing pharmaceutical drugs would be illegal.

“Those are something that sells in a drugstore or a pharmacy,” he said. “If someone was selling it privately, it’s illegal.”

He said that he had never previously heard of cannabis being referred to as a “drug” and could not recall if he had ever heard of cocaine before his arrest.

Mr Gill added that he had never looked up whether cannabis was legal in a location before travelling because he had never known cannabis to be illegal.

The trial 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