Two men charged with conspiracy to import over $2 million worth of cannabis were well aware they were entering into ?an unlawful enterprise?, Crown counsel Paula Tyndale argued yesterday. Former Dunkley?s Dairy employees Michael Madeiros, 41, and Steven Flood, 39, are accused of plotting the importation of 120 pounds of the drug in a Dunkley?s Dairy container shipped from the United States in October, 2003.

Another accused man, Maurice Stovell, 32, was released last week after Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves ruled there was insufficient evidence against him.

Over the course of the eight-day Supreme Court trial, the court heard that Flood owns a business called Locomotion Graphics as well as working full-time for Dunkley?s Dairy, and had in the past been granted permission to use dairy container space to import materials for his own enterprise.

Flood made an order by telephone on October 13 to US suppliers Vector Graphics and paid for the goods by credit card.

On the same day, a black West Indian man purchased four boxes of goods at the offices of Vector Graphics in New Jersey and took them away ? only for those same boxes, coupled with Flood?s legitimate order, to later arrive at the Salem port filled with cannabis and destined for Dunkley?s Dairy. Addressing the nine woman, three man jury, Ms Tyndale labelled Flood ?the facilitator? ? the man responsible for ordering products from overseas and making sure the boxes were retrieved from the container and transferred to the appropriate party. Madeiros, she suggested, was the man who had ?made the arrangements? with a local drugs baron, known only as ?Bingy?, and had persuaded Flood to become involved in the operation.

Last week, Shadow Health Minister Michael Dunkley testified that both Flood and Madeiros, friends of his for close to 15 years, had confessed their guilt to him in November, 2003.

?He had known them for many years,? Ms Tyndale said.

?They played golf together, they confided in him. There is absolutely no reason why he would then make up elaborate stories by which to implicate them.?

The cellular phone records of both men over that period also ?correspond very well? with the Crown?s case, Ms Tyndale continued. The pair did not contact each other at all from October 1-12, although on the ?crucial dates? of October 13 ? the day Flood ordered the goods from Vector Graphics ? and October 23-24 when the container arrived, they called each other on numerous occasions.

?It is left to you the jury to decide whether this is more than just a coincidence,? she said.

?You will have to use your common sense in this regard, but I would suggest this sort of coincidence is an affront to common sense.?

The behaviour of Flood on October 24, when he loitered around one of the offices at Dunkley?s Dairy for close to two hours looking ?nervous and fidgety? is further indication of his guilt. ?He had brought in goods through Dunkley?s Dairy in the past, but had never acted like this before,? she said.

In reply, defence counsel Mark Pettingill contended that ?large pieces of the puzzle? were missing from the Crown?s case and based on the presumption of innocence, the jury had ?no choice? but to acquit the two men.

At the centre of Mr. Pettingill?s broad argument lay Mr. Dunkley?s Police statement taken on December 9, 2003, in which no mention was made of the alleged confessions given to the politician in early November.

?Something is rotten here,? Mr. Pettingill said.

?Why is it that Mr. Dunkley, who took a great interest in the progress of the Police investigation, who testified in this court that the case was ?hanging over the company?s head and he wanted to see it resolved? did not tell Police in January that the two suspects had confessed to him? This, I would suggest, raises very serious questions about the credibility of Dunkley?s evidence and by extension, serious doubts over the guilt of these two men.?

Mr. Justice Greaves will begin his summation this morning.