The Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of a man jailed for possessing ammunition and almost $1 million-worth of heroin.

Winston Paynter, 45, denied allegations that he had any knowledge of the drugs, which were found in his van in 2019, or nine rounds of ammunition discovered in his home on the same day.

He was found guilty of both charges after a 2023 trial in the Supreme Court and was later sentenced to 25 years behind bars.

However, Paynter argued before the Court of Appeal that an analyst’s report about the drugs seized should not have gone before the jury because of a possible break in the continuity of the evidence as well as questions about the analyst’s appointment.

In a written decision handed down last week, Justice of Appeal Narinder Hargun said the evidence was admitted as a formal admission, and there was no doubt as to the analyst’s qualifications or competence.

The judge added that complaints about Paynter’s lawyer at trial, Marc Daniels, were unfounded.

He wrote: “Mr Daniels was entitled to take the view that there was nothing in the continuity point and decide not to cross-examine the witnesses.

“Given the evidence from the report and the agreed fact that continuity of all prosecution exhibits was not disputed, any criticism of Mr Daniels, in my judgment, is misplaced.

“I consider that all the criticisms advanced by the appellant in relation to Mr Daniels’ conduct under this ground, taken as a whole, does not cast any doubt on the fairness of the trial or the safety of the appellant’s conviction.”

During his trial, the court heard that on April 11, 2019, police stopped Paynter’s work van on Middle Road in Warwick.

During the stop, the officers saw Paynter place a white plastic bag behind the passenger seat and to the rear of the van.

The officers located the bag and found two heat-sealed packages containing a brown substance inside.

An analyst at the government laboratory found that one of the packages contained 232.8 grams of 31 per cent pure heroin, while the second held 138.5g of 56 per cent pure heroin.

After Paynter’s arrest, police carried out a search at his home in Devonshire and recovered several items including a shoebox which contained six 9mm rounds of ammunition.

A police officer gave evidence that the drugs seized in the case could be used to produce as many as 49,000 “decks” with an overall value of up to $998,186 if sold on the streets of Bermuda.

Paynter denied any knowledge of the drugs or the bullets, telling the Supreme Court that his “rough-around-the-edges” cousin stayed at his house, where the van had been left the night before his arrest.

He also stated that he was living at another address with his girlfriend, but had left some of his belongings at the house.

The jury found Paynter guilty by a unanimous verdict after six hours of deliberation, and Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe subsequently sentenced him to 25 years behind bars for the “reprehensible” offences.

However, Paynter launched an appeal against his conviction on a number of grounds, including that the evidence of the drug analyst should not have been put before the jury because her position had not been gazetted at the time her report was written.

He said the issue was not identified at trial because of “serious failures” by his trial counsel, however, the Crown said the evidence was admitted during the trial as agreed facts, making the gazetting irrelevant.

The Court of Appeal further found that there was no reason to doubt the account of Mr Daniels that he obtained Paynter’s approval before agreeing the facts and he saw no reason to challenging the continuity of the evidence.

The Court also dismissed a ground that the case was unfair because Paynter did not have a defence expert to challenge the Crown’s drug evidence.

While Paynter criticised Mr Daniels for not applying for Legal Aid funding for such an expert, the Appeal Panel accepted there was no credible reason to hire a drug expert since Paynter’s defence was that he had no knowledge of the seized items.

The Court also dismissed an argument that Mr Justice Wolffe should have given a more full-bodied good-character direction for Paynter, noting that he had previous convictions, albeit not of similar nature.

The judgment stated: “Given his previous convictions the appellant had no entitlement to a good-character direction. This was accepted by Mr Daniels.

“The direction which the judge gave reflected the form suggested by Mr Daniels.”

• 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