The prosecutor in a drug trial told a Supreme Court jury that the defendant’s story crumbled under the slightest bit of logic.

Claudisha Charley, 29, has denied conspiring with others to import 9,262 grams of cannabis into the island on April 3. The drug carried a street value of as much as $919,264.

The Canadian national said that she visited Bermuda as an escort to meet a “sugar daddy” before discovering that one of her bags was full of drugs.

She argued that her manager, whom she’d met last year on a trip to Bermuda, had given her the bag and told her it was full of money to pay for a friend’s medical bills.

Ms Charley said she was instructed to leave the bag at the airport carousel to be picked up by someone else.

However, Daniel Kitson-Walters, for the Crown, said that her defence only made sense “if you didn’t think about it”.

He reminded the jury that Ms Charley didn’t know basic information about the man she was meeting, the services she would provide, or when she would be paid.

He further pointed out that none of her texts with her manager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, mentioned anything about her services.

Mr Kitson-Walters added that it was hard to believe that Ms Charley’s manager, whom she described as “cheap,” would give her a bag of money and tell her to leave it at the airport to be picked up by someone else.

He said: “Have you know anyone who would intentionally come off a flight and intentionally leave their bag? Nobody does that unless it’s part of a plan.

“Ms Charley didn’t come here to be an escort or a sugar baby — she came here to bring drugs into this country for supply.”

Mr Kitson-Walters further suggested that there was plenty of evidence of a conspiracy by judging her encounters with a taxi driver she was directed to meet.

He said that the $1,000 he gave her, a text from her manager that read “the old man [taxi driver] doesn’t have much money to give you if the bag is not found” and the key that she gave the driver — which she only mentioned on the stand during cross examination by the Crown — were all evidence of a conspiracy.

Mr Kitson-Walter pointed out phone records that showed a Canadian number had been talking to Ms Charley and Kevin Rousseau, who later admitted drug conspiracy, on the same day.

He said that those texts told her to “not show herself” when she got to the airport.

Ms Charley suggested this may have been because he did not want anyone to suspect she was servicing her client.

However, Mr Kitson-Walters said that no one would know the relationship between two strangers and instead suggested this was because everyone knew the drugs were found in a bag under her name.

He added that this was evident in Ms Charley refusing to give police her name when she was approached.

Elizabeth Christopher, for the defence, said that none of the prosecution’s points proved her client was involved in a conspiracy.

She said the Crown only sowed doubt into her client’s defence without providing reasonable evidence of a crime — which the Crown was obliged to do for a conviction.

She told the jury: “In taking this oath, you promised to cast all prejudice aside and judge solely based on the evidence.

“You must decide if the evidence provided to you by my learned friend has convinced you that she’s guilty.”

Ms Christopher said that it was reasonable for her client not to know her sugar daddy for confidentiality reasons.

She said: “She may not know the name of a client if you’re going for sexual service — that’s the point of a manager.”

Ms Christopher added: “Just because she left a suitcase doesn’t mean she was part of an agreement to bring in a controlled drug.

“Do you think that, if she knew there were controlled drugs in that suitcase, she would politely go and offer to collect it among all those police officers and Customs officers looking for her?”

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