A drugs trial collapsed yesterday and two men walked free when the judge ruled there was no evidence that a package alleged to contain cocaine actually did.

During the three-week trial, the Crown had claimed a package of white powder found hidden in a parcel at the airport last year contained $30,000 of cocaine.

Earlier in the trial, Detective Constable Barry Richards gave evidence that the powder was then put in a tamper-proof bag, but from that point on, it appeared the bag was never opened.

In Supreme Court yesterday, Judge Vincent Meerabux said: "There is no evidence to prove the essential element in the offence, the essential element of the offence is that which was in possession, or handled was the controlled drug cocaine.'' He said substances are usually analysed at the Government lab.

Justice Meerabux went on: "There is no evidence the substance was analysed as having cocaine.'' He said other cases cited by the Crown where convictions had been gained despite the lack of proof that the substance was drugs were not relevant because other circumstances, such as confessions, had pointed to guilt.

He concluded: "The evidence is contradictory and inherently weak -- no reasonable jury, properly directed would convict.

"I rule there is no case to answer in respect to counts one to three.'' The jury were then brought in and told they must bring in a not guilty verdict on the two accused men, which they then did.

Alexander Ming, 42, of no fixed address and Kenneth Durrant, 48, of Ord Road, Warwick, were both given not guilty verdicts for possession of a controlled drug and handling a controlled drug.

Ming was also cleared of importing a controlled drug into Bermuda between June 21 and July 1.

Defence lawyer Mark Pettingill, who represented Durrant, said: "I think the decision by the judge to order no case is absolutely right and clearly logical given that on the basis of evidence in this case presented by the Crown there was no analysis of the white powder.'' Mr. Pettingill said the Misuse of Drugs Act already shifted the burden of proof onto the defendant.

He said: "So it is right that everything is to be done by the letter and done properly, if it's not done properly it would not be just.

"Too much onus is on the defendant for the Police to come along and not dot the i's and cross the t's.'' He said the tamper-proof bags had come into use to stop the possibility of evidence being meddled with.

"If a bag is tampered with it will show `void' to show it's been tampered with. In this case the bag had clearly not been tampered with on the evidence of Police,'' said Mr. Pettingill.

"It was never opened, unfortunately that meant it couldn't be opened for analysis by the Government analyst.

"They couldn't prove it was cocaine.'' Asked about procedures which led to the case a Police spokesman said: "That is our standard procedure -- everytime we sent a suspected drug it is sealed in a tamper-proof package.''