The Supreme Court deliberated yesterday if it should consider lies told by a convicted drug smuggler tarnishing a lawyer’s reputation in determining his sentence.

Alexta Gill was found guilty by a unanimous verdict in July of importing cannabis and liquid cocaine to the island on a flight from Toronto.

While he claimed during trial that he knew nothing about the plot and said that he lied to police based on advice from Bruce Swan, Gill admitted in a pre-sentencing report that he knowingly agreed to smuggle drugs after suffering financial hardship in Canada.

At the hearing yesterday, prosecutors argued that Gill’s allegations had caused Mr Swan actual harm, which the court could consider on sentencing.

However, counsel for Gill said any damage caused had not been quantified and should not be taken into account.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe said that the allegations made on the stand by Gill and reported by The Royal Gazette went directly against Mr Swan’s reputation.

Mr Justice Wolffe said: “One’s reputation is the tool of their trade. A lawyer gets work based on their reputation or does not get work based on their reputation.”

While the judge reserved his final decision until a later date, he noted that Gill had apologised to his family and the court but had not offered any apology to those he had maligned from the stand.

Mr Justice Wolffe said: “It’s clear he didn’t express any regret or remorse for lying about Mr Swan. He didn’t express any regret and remorse for saying the police officers treated him in intimidating fashion.”

Gill, a Guyanese national from Canada, was convicted of importing $676,736 of cannabis and liquid cocaine from Canada to Bermuda on March 4, 2023.

While an initial 2024 trial was aborted after a Covid-19 outbreak among the jurors, he was found guilty after his second trial.

The court heard in that instance how, in an initial police interview, Gill denied any knowledge of drugs discovered in his suitcase.

He backtracked during his second interview and claimed someone named “Andre” had threatened his life over unpaid debts.

He told officers that, in response, he agreed to bring a suitcase to Bermuda.

At trial, Gill told the jury that the story was fabricated on the advice of Mr Swan in a bid to get released from custody.

Mr Justice Wolffe rejected the claim, finding it “unbelievable” that any criminal defence lawyer would advise their client to lie in exchange for police bail.

This month, the court questioned the impact that the lies may have had on Mr Swan and his business, suggesting they could be considered an aggravating feature.

At the hearing yesterday, the Supreme Court heard that Mr Swan had provided a letter which said that the Legal Aid office had not allowed him to serve as duty counsel since the allegations were made, which had impacted his income.

Mr Swan also wrote that he had been asked about Gill’s allegations by clients after media coverage of the trial and said that charities he worked with had raised concerns.

Khadija Beddeau, for the Crown, said that in a social inquiry report written after his conviction, Gill admitted guilt, which she said meant he accepted lying on the stand.

Ms Beddeau added that the jury had decisively rejected Gill’s story, quickly delivering a unanimous guilty verdict.

She told the court that the transcript of Gill’s first trial appeared to confirm Mr Swan had been removed from the duty counsel roster after the allegations surfaced, demonstrating actual harm.

However, Nicole Smith, for Gill, said that Mr Swan continued to represent clients on Legal Aid and argued his unsworn letter failed to quantify any losses incurred.

Ms Smith added: “If Mr Swan had actually felt aggrieved and harmed by my client’s evidence, we wouldn’t have had to invite him to say so. He could have pursued a civil claim for defamation.”

She also sought to draw a distinction between Gill’s admission that he committed the offence and an admission that he had lied about Mr Swan.

However, Mr Justice Wolffe said that his “egregious” allegations about Mr Swan were a “main plank” of Gill’s defence.

The judge also expressed doubt about Gill’s sentiments of regret and remorse, suggesting that he thought his late admission might help him secure a shorter sentence.

The matter was adjourned until December for a final decision.

• 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