A man convicted of having heroin with a street value of $1 million and six rounds of ammunition was jailed today for 25 years.

Winston Paynter, 43, was given 19½ years imprisonment for drug possession with intent to supply and 14 years’ imprisonment for possession of ammunition without a licence.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe said in his written decision: “I should say from the outset that there should be no dispute about the public’s and the legislature’s grim views of the offences for which the defendant has been convicted of.

“The harsh sentencing tariffs for each offence are no doubt a reflection of society’s revulsion for these offence, particularly in an environment which has been comprehensively devastated by the disturbing rise and prevalence of drug addiction and gun violence in Bermuda over the past ten to 15 years.

“Such devastation lies firmly at the feet of those who not only tear at the normal, social and physical health of our community for financial benefit through their trafficking in drugs, but who are also poised to exact violence and fear on members of the public in order to secure and/or maintain their ill-gotten gains.”

Mr Justice Wolffe said that the sentences were to run consecutively with time in custody taken into consideration, but reasoned that the total of 33½ years would be disproportionate to the offences and reduced the amount to 25 years.

Mr Justice Wolffe said that the two charges on their own were “reprehensible” enough – but combined suggested someone who was “prepared to go to extreme lengths to protect their nefarious product”.

He added that, while Paynter was convicted of ammunition possession and not firearms possession, there was “no real difference legislatively” between the two.

The Supreme Court earlier heard that police stopped Paynter, a temperature control technician, on April 11, 2019, as he drove his work van along Middle Road in Warwick.

They searched the back of his van and found two heat-sealed packages with a brown substance later discovered to be 371.3 grams of heroin.

A later search of his Devonshire home also turned up six 9mm rounds of ammunition.

Paynter told the court during his trial that he was completely unaware of the drugs and ammunition, and said they likely came from his cousin, who lived in his apartment while Paynter stayed with his girlfriend, and who used his work van on occasion.

Despite his claim, which was supported later by his girlfriend, he was convicted on March 9 on all counts.

Alan Richards, for the Crown, said in written submissions to the court that Paynter should receive between 30 and 32 years’ imprisonment.

He said that the sentence for heroin possession should be between 18 and 20 years since a basic heroin charge would receive 12 years of jail time and that a 50 per cent uplift for his initial plea of not guilty should be added.

He added that he should also run a 12-year sentence for the ammunition.

But Marc Daniels, for the defence, said that his client should receive 15 to 16 years for heroin possession – a ten to 11-year basic sentence with a 50 per cent uplift – and four years’ imprisonment for possession of ammunition.

He explained that his client had no previous convictions and that he was at a low risk of reoffending.

Mr Daniels added that Paynter was a youth coach and a father, and that his children would suffer “financially, emotionally, spiritually” from prolonged incarceration.

But Mr Justice Wolffe wrote in his judgment that these factors amount to “very little”.

He explained: “All too often, persons are convicted of serious and even heinous offences and on sentencing they refer to their duties as parents as a reason why their sentence should be reduced.

“The other side of that coin is that offenders, prior to and whilst engaging in criminal conduct, should not only think about the effects which any conviction and subsequent imprisonment may have on their loved ones, but also about the consequences [which may be of a violent nature] which may befall their children whilst committing offences.

“If they do so then maybe, just maybe, they would be deterred from committing the offences in the first place.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers