A man failed to get his drugs conviction quashed yesterday in an appeal at the Supreme Court before Chief Justice Austin Ward.

Defence attorney Elizabeth Christopher was told the appeal of Donald DeSilva was to be dismissed because only one of her five grounds of complaint had held up - and it did not warrant overturning the original outcome. DeSilva was last year found guilty by Magistrate Edward King of possession with intent to supply cannabis in an increased penalty zone - that of Dandy Town Football Club - some two years earlier.

The 38-year-old, of Green Acres Road, Devonshire, was jailed for two years for being in possession of 153 grams of cannabis with intent to supply in July of 98. He also received an additional year's jail-term because of the increased penalty zone.

The drugs were found in a paper bag on the back seat of his car.

But Ms Christopher yesterday appealed the conviction, claiming:

The trial had been unduly delayed

The magistrate's assessment of the credibility of one of the witnesses was questionable

The magistrate had presumed that the paper bag was the container in which the drugs were carried in and that DeSilva had had possession of the paper bag. She argued that the car should have been classed as the container.

The attorney at the time Juan Wolffe made an application in private chambers with the magistrate and prosecuting counsel, instead of in full view of the court, and without the full authority of his client and without the discussions being fully and properly recorded.

That on weighing up all the evidence, the verdict should not have been supported.

Ms Christopher referred to a witness account which stated that DeSilva had been handcuffed by Police put back into his own car and shoved the package between two seats.

Ms. Christopher said: "He was put in that position. Mr. DeSilva was in a position where he had no control. It did not say he did it deliberately."

Chief Justice Ward weighed up each of the grounds and said there was nothing to warrant the quashing of the conviction.

He said the delay was not inordinate and said the magistrate had used his discretion correctly in not dismissing the case because of the delay. The Judge said there was no grounds for complaint with regards the assessment of credibility of witnesses, or the presumption that the drugs were contained in the paper bag.

And he said the magistrate did have evidence to support the verdict, adding: "There was an abundance of evidence on which the learned magistrate could base his findings of facts. There was no miscarriage of justice."

However, Chief Justice Ward did say, perhaps, that the application should have been made in open court and a full record taken, instead of in chambers.

The court heard how Mr. Wolffe had not wanted to discuss the application before the electronic and print media.

Chief Justice Ward said: "It would have been better if the learned magistrate had heard the application in open court. But, it is understandable how he permitted the application in chambers because up to that time there was nothing to suggest that Mr. Wolffe was not acting in full authority of the appellant.

"The discussion in chambers had no affect whatsoever in the ultimate outcome. The appellant was clearly trafficking drugs at a football field and was properly convicted."

He added: "The sentence could have been higher. The appeal is dismissed."

Prosecutor Cindy Clarke represented the Crown .