A drug trafficker jailed for 18 years has had an appeal for a lighter sentence rejected.

Omar Davy, 40, was found guilty of smuggling $765,700 worth of heroin on a flight from Toronto in 2018.

Last month he launched an appeal for a lesser sentence, claiming that he would have pleaded guilty to the offence had he received proper legal advice. Defendants who admit their guilt, show remorse, and avoid a trial can have their custodial sentences reduced by a third.

At his trial, Davy, from Mandeville, Jamaica, said that he was kidnapped by a group of gangsters the day before he flew to the island.

He claimed he was beaten by the gang, who also threatened to harm his mother and sister in Jamaica, before forcing him to become a drug mule.

Davy was arrested shortly after he arrived in Bermuda the following day.

Davy’s defence that he was acting under duress was rejected at his trial because his family was not in any immediate danger when the threats were made against them.

His lawyer, Liz Christopher told the Court of Appeal: “Had Davy understood the law – which I think is very, very clear with respect to the defence of duress in this jurisdiction – he would not have persisted in his not guilty plea.”

But in a written ruling handed down by the court yesterday, that argument was rejected.

Judge Geoffrey Bell pointed out that, because a trial had gone ahead, Davy could not be given any credit for saving court time and expense.

He also said that he was “highly sceptical that the appellant has either truly acknowledged his guilt, or demonstrated any remorse“.

Judge Bell wrote: “If a defendant were to be given the discount based not on whether a trial was in fact avoided because that defendant pleaded guilty, but based on the nature of the advice said to have been given to him by his counsel, the sentencing policy insofar as it affords discounts for early guilty pleas by others would no doubt be thrown into uncertainty and confusion.

“So the position in my view is that the discount for a guilty plea must remain based on an actual guilty plea, and not one based on what might have happened.”

Ms Christopher had also argued that Davy’s sentence was excessive when compared to prison terms given to drug mules.

But the appeals judges also rejected this claim, saying it was “unsupported by authority”.

Judge Bell wrote: “The case before us was one of commercial importation of a significant quantity of heroin, and the sentence was proportionate to other sentences for similar offences.

“But it is also to be noted that because of the Appellant’s implausible defence, this court cannot assume that the appellant was indeed a courier somewhat lower down the chain of responsibility than an importer who had planned and organised the drug importation.

“The judge in sentencing made it very clear that he understood that the jury had rejected the appellant’s defence, and that in sentencing he could not go behind that.

“There is no basis for the argument that the Appellant was at the bottom of the chain of responsibility, as submitted by Ms Christopher, and I would reject that approach.

“Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal against sentence in this case.”