ERROR RG P4 19.3.1999 Convicted drug smuggler David Anthony Ray, who launched his appeal this week, did not plead guilty in his Supreme Court trial last September. The error was reported in Tuesday's Royal Gazette .

The jury which convicted a suspected drug trafficker was misled by damning, dangerous and prejudiced evidence, the Court of Appeal heard yesterday.

David Anthony Ray, jailed for seven years, was "set up'' when he was found with more than $100,000 worth of cannabis at Bermuda International Airport, his lawyer said.

Lawyer Richard Hector added that Ray's trial was unfair, adding: "We try to help juries. When we are dealing with evidence that's potentially explosive, we have to tell them not to deal with it.'' Thirty-one-year-old Ray, of Pitts Bay Road, was found with the drugs during a Customs search after coming off a charter flight from Jamaica in August, 1997.

He initially pleaded guilty, although Mr. Hector told his trial this was because he could not face a long period in jail.

The cannabis, weighing more than 2,000 grammes, had been hidden in the crude false bottom of a box.

Appeal Court President Sir James Astwood said Ray had been found with the drugs "in his hand''.

But he agreed with Mr. Hector that certain pieces of "hearsay evidence'' should not have been admitted by trial judge Norma Wade-Miller last September.

Yesterday's hearing was told that Ray began giving "no comment'' answers after making five Police statements.

But Police still linked him with convicted Jamaican drug exporter John Barr, a middle-man called Vincent and a known dealers' haven called the Pelican Grill -- which all produced a "no comment'' response.

Mr. Hector added: "He answered all these questions but these were not new.

"They asked about a man named Vincent. They asked about the Pelican Grill, said by Police to be `a frequent meeting place for drug traffickers'.

"Then they asked about John Barr, who they said was a convicted drug exporter, according to the Jamaican Police.

"There was no admission by my client. But how much more force do you think a jury needs to hear?'' He said the evidence was inadmissible -- "damaging and damning, prejudiced and dangerous''.

But Sir James added: "If the cautioned statement was knocked out, he would still have a pretty strong case to answer.

"He's found with the stuff in his hand. That's what gives me trouble in this case.'' But he agreed the Police interview surrounding John Barr and the Pelican Grill should never have been used as evidence.

"That's almost as bad as saying the defendant had previous convictions,'' he said. "I ask myself why they attempted to put this in the case. It could destroy an otherwise very good case. I don't say it has any probative value whatsoever.'' But Crown counsel Sandra Bacchus said the controversial evidence "cut both ways'' and had actually allowed Mr. Hector to build a defence.

She added: "In any event, the evidence in this case was overwhelming.

"It can't be the Crown's responsibility that Mr. Ray gave statements that were partially helpful and partially not helpful.'' The appeal will be decided within a month.

Richard Hector: Jury misled