A jury of four men and three women began deliberations on Wednesday after hearing evidence and closing speeches in the trial of three men charged with conspiracy to supply drugs.

The conspiracy alleged was not with each other, but with Alexander Adrian Ebanks, who pleaded guilty in 2016 to a variety of drug offenses. Examination of his phones by police led to numbers associated with Ian Duncan, Wayne Carlos Myles and Ukel Dixon.

Ebanks was not a witness in the trial.

Justice Charles Quin summed up the evidence and instructed the jury about points of law Wednesday morning. He explained that the case against each defendant was different and each count in the indictment had to considered separately.

Duncan, represented by attorney Crister Brady, was the only defendant to give evidence. He admitted having been a heavy drug user and told the court of his participation in the Drug Rehabilitation Court. He said he purchased drugs for his own use, not to supply to others. He said, as an example, that he would use for three days straight and then crash.

Duncan pleaded not guilty to six charges, based on phone records with Ebanks between Aug. 14 and Sept. 10, 2015.

Myles and Dixon did not give evidence.

The phone number associated with Myles was entered in Ebanks’s phone as “Beenie.” He had denied being Beenie and his attorney, Alex Davies, argued that a police officer who said he knew Myles as Beenie was not reliable. The Crown got the number because it had been provided to the Department of Vehicle and Drivers’ Licensing as a contact for Myles. Mr. Davies argued that there was no evidence of any agreement between Ebanks and Myles, who pleaded not guilty to two counts.

Dixon was represented by attorney Nicholas Dixey, who pointed out that there was no evidence to show that Dixon had exclusive use of the phone number attributed to him at the material time – Sept. 19 to Oct. 22, 2015.

The Crown’s case, presented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Patrick Moran was that Dixon was Ebanks’s “runner” or delivery person.

Evidence in the form of telephone records showed Ebanks receiving a call or message from a customer, then contacting the phone attributed to Dixon and then contacting the customer.

But there was no evidence Dixon was personally present when those messages were sent or received and Dixon during his trial did not have the opportunity to question the people who sent the messages.

Justice Quin told jurors that Dixon and Myles had an absolute right not to give evidence, since the burden was on the Crown to prove the case against them. However, that meant there was no evidence to rebut or contradict the Crown’s evidence.

If jurors were sure that the Crown’s case was sufficiently strong to call for an answer and there was no sensible reason not to give an answer, they might conclude that the defendant had no answer to give or no answer that would stand up to cross-examination. But that inference could only lend support to the Crown’s case; it could not prove the case.

The jury had not returned their verdict by press time Wednesday.

Comments are closed.