A lawyer accused of stealing from his clients told the Supreme Court that his claims of exploitation was the only logical explanation for what had taken place.

Tyrone Quinn, 37, told the court that there was nothing to suggest that he had spent the money on himself or that he had any involvement in drugs or gangs.

“There’s only one explanation that is in front of you, one logical explanation, and that was duress,” he said.

However, a prosecutor told the jury that it was obvious from the evidence that Mr Quinn had dishonestly used money that belonged to his clients as if it were his own.

Alan Richards, for the Crown, added that Mr Quinn’s claims that he had acted under duress did not make sense or explain why thousands of dollars went to expenses unrelated to the threats or the complainants who lost out.

“Any child who is given money by their granny to pay the light bill knows that if they use it to buy sweets for themselves and their friends, it is wrong,” he said.

Mr Quinn has been accused of three counts of theft totalling $483,000 after three of his clients said he failed to turn over compensation payments he had received on their behalf.

The offences are alleged to have taken place between May 2020 and February 2021.

Mr Quinn has denied the offences and told the court that he had been extorted by gangsters who threatened him and his family members with death.

He told the court that he was initially approached by two men in 2019 over a “problem” related to an illegal business transaction and that they demanded compensation.

Mr Quinn said he did not know the men or their “problem” but that he yielded to their demands out of fear for his family, paying them thousands of dollars and making payments on their behalf.

Delivering his closing statement yesterday, Mr Richards said that given the facts of the case, the jury needed to determine if Mr Quinn had acted dishonestly, if he had sought to permanently deprive the complainants of their money and if he had acted under duress.

Mr Richards said that Mr Quinn had dishonestly told one of his clients that he had deposited money into her account knowing he had not and failed to tell the complainants that he had received payout funds on their behalf until long after.

He added that Mr Quinn’s use of the client money to pay for unrelated expenses with no expectation of the money being returned highlighted that he did not intend to pass the funds to his clients.

“He said his clients were his first concern,” Mr Richards said. “Where is the evidence to suggest that Mr Quinn accorded these three individuals any priority whatsoever?”

Mr Richards also suggested that Mr Quinn’s claim that the gangsters were at his home almost every day conflicted with statements from other witnesses that he had become impossible to reach.

He added that Mr Quinn had to claim the gangsters were there every day because it was the only possible explanation for them repeatedly making demands on the same day that funds were added to the account.

Mr Richards noted that Mr Quinn had no previous convictions, but added: “In this case, it’s clear that the actions which are really not disputed must have been dishonest.

“All the good character in the world cannot overcome the clear evidence.”

Mr Quinn said that while in hindsight it was clear that he could have done better, the jury needed to consider how they would act in the moment when threats are made against them and their families.

He told the jury: “When you are in these circumstances and they are demanding … I’m not trying to be graphic but they have a weapon to your head and they are coming up to you, what do you do?

“It’s isn’t a video game. It isn’t a movie. This is real life.”

Mr Quinn said that he did not go to the police because he wanted to protect those close to him, but he never attempted to flee and continued to work with the intention of providing his clients what they are owed.

He added that while he refused to give the identities of the suspects, the police had not done a proper investigation into his claims.

“Where is the investigation?” he asked. “They could have investigated the veracity of what I said, but it didn’t go with the narrative.”

Mr Quinn said placing the funds in a different account would have done nothing to stop the “unscrupulous” people terrorising him.

“I admit that I pulled up the accounts and I showed them,” Mr Quinn said. “From there they made demands and, rightly or wrongly, I acquiesced. Not because I wanted to, not because I wanted to be in their good books, not because I wanted to get down with the gang. It was self-preservation.”

The trial, before Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe, continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case