A ground-breaking legal precedent is being sought by lawyer John Perry QC as he appeals the conviction of Jennifer Medeiros who was found guilty by jury of jointly being in possession of more than $200,000 of cocaine.

Before three Court of Appeal judges, including a former Lord Justice of Appeal, he has based his argument around an untested section of Bermuda?s Misuse of Drugs Act from 1972.

And Mr. Perry has delved back into UK case law from the 1960s to explain his reasoning.

Medeiros and her common-law partner Oshane Eugene Darrell were found guilty last July of possessing 697 grams of cocaine found at their condominium in Somerset during a Police search in November 2002.

The drugs were found in an envelope in the kitchen ? which was addressed to Darrell ? and in a cabinet beneath the bathroom sink. In interviews with Police and at the trial last summer, Medeiros consistently maintained she had no knowledge of the drugs being on the property.

Police conducted a search of the premises when the couple were not at home and discovered the drugs and a quantity of money amounting to nearly $20,000.

Questioned about the money, Medeiros explained that $6,000 found with some plane tickets were to be used by her and her partner on an upcoming trip and another sum of $1,192 was ?baby shower? gifts from friends after the birth of her daughter in August 2002.

A further $12,000 found in a bedroom cabinet she said she had no knowledge of.

However, Medeiros was found guilty of being in possession of the drugs by a jury and was sentenced to seven years in jail. Her partner Darrell, whom she had planned to marry the day after the Police raid, was sentenced to 10 years for being in possession of the drugs and having intent to supply.

The Court of Appeal is being chaired by President Justice Edward Zacca who is sitting alongside former Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Murray Stuart-Smith and Justice Gerald Nazareth.

Addressing the Appeal Judges, Mr. Perry said the general principle in law is that the onus lies on the prosecution in a criminal trial to prove all the elements of the offence with which the accused is charged.

He maintains this was not the case in the original trial because a section (Section 32 1B) of the Misuse of Drugs Act was invoked that has no previous determining cases to illustrate how it should be applied.

Because the couple shared the condominium ?there was an assumption they were in control of the drugs? said Mr. Perry, but the 1972 Act does not define what is meant by being in possession.

Questions posed to the Appeal judges included whether it is enough simply to know something exists ? whether you are aware it is drugs or not ? to be deemed in possession of the items because they are in your home? And what if you are not even aware that the items are in a house you jointly co-habit with another?

?In this case, the prosecution has used the presumption in section 32 to provide the element of knowledge (of the drugs),? said Mr. Perry, but that is not enough he argued.

On Monday, lawyer Frank Phipps, representing Darrell, said there was a physical element and a mental element to the charge his client had faced and that while there was no question of physical possession of the cocaine because it was found in the house, he said it must also be proved that Darrell had knowledge of the drugs.

He argued that, in a house shared by two people, it was not enough to imply that because drugs were found on the premises his client had ?custody and control? of the drugs.

The appeal hearing continues.