A man convicted of heroin possession argued in the Court of Appeal that evidence about the drug should have not gone before a jury.

Winston Paynter, 45, was found guilty in 2023 of possessing heroin with intent to supply and possession of ammunition without a licence after a Supreme Court trial. He was sentenced to 25 years behind bars.

He launched an appeal against his conviction, arguing at a hearing yesterday that the results of a report by a drug analyst should not have been admitted because the analyst’s post was not properly gazetted.

However, the Crown said the issue was “completely irrelevant” and the report had been included in the case as part of the agreed facts between the prosecution and the defence.

The Supreme Court heard that police stopped Paynter, a temperature control technician, on April 11, 2019, as he drove his work van along Middle Road in Warwick.

They searched the back of his van and found two heat-sealed packages with a brown substance discovered to be 371.3 grams of heroin, while a search of his Devonshire home turned up six 9mm rounds of ammunition.

Paynter told the court during his trial that he was completely unaware of the drugs and ammunition.

He said they likely came from his cousin, who lived in his apartment while Paynter stayed with his girlfriend, and who used his work van on occasion.

Despite his claim, supported by his girlfriend, he was convicted on all counts by a unanimous verdict.

Bruce Swan, who served as counsel for Paynter for most of the hearing, argued in the Court of Appeal yesterday that an analyst’s report on the drugs in the case should not have been admitted for legal reasons because of the gazetting issue.

Mr Swan also highlighted what he said was a gap in the chain of custody for the drugs.

While the analyst stated in an affidavit that she received the envelope found to contain heroin from a property manager, the affidavit from property manager did not mention the envelope’s exhibit number when listing the items turned over for analysis.

Mr Swan said the issue might have been remedied during the trial, but neither the property manager nor the analyst were called as witnesses.

He told the court that the issue of the chain of custody was broached by Paynter, but the matter was not pursued by his counsel in part because of a lack of time to prepare for the case.

Mr Swan added that if the analyst’s report was not admissible, it would mean that a report on the value of the drugs seized — estimated to be nearly $1 million — was also inadmissible.

Paynter, who took over his own representation during the hearing, further argued that the trial judge, Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe, should have given the jury a more full-throated good character direction.

He told the court that Mr Justice Wolffe, initially indicated that he would give a full good character direction, but instead only told the jury that Paynter had not been convicted of similar offences in the past.

Adley Duncan, for the Crown, responded that Paynter was not entitled to a good character direction because he had previous convictions for unrelated offences, and the more measured direction was given after discussions with counsel.

“There’s no entitlement to be treated that way,” he said. “It’s an exercise of judicial discretion.”

Mr Duncan said the drug analyst was eminently qualified to produce a report on the drugs seized in the case, and the gazetting of her post would only be relevant if prosecutors wished to tender her certificate, which they did not.

He also said that as part of the agreed facts of the case, the defence had accepted there were no issues with the chain of custody, and an affidavit from Paynter’s counsel at trial said he acted on the appellant’s instructions.

In response, Paynter said that he had raised the issue with his trial counsel and the agreed facts were signed without his consent.

Paynter added: “He made decisions on his own. I was just present.”

The Court reserved judgment on the case until a later date.

• 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