The jury in a blackmail case has heard final statements from lawyers as the trial came to a close yesterday.

Daniel Kitsen-Walters, for the Crown, said that the prosecution’s evidence pointed towards Janico Burrows, 28, knowingly helping Jahmeco Blakeney steal $1,200 from Paulette Godfrey.

He said that the defendant’s constant telephone calls to the victim, and his suspicious behaviour throughout the trial, pointed towards Mr Burrows’ guilt.

Mr Kitsen-Walters added: “You do not need to be good at maths to see that Janico Burrows and Jahmeco Blakeney stole from Mrs Godfrey.”

Mr Burrows has denied making “unwarranted demands with menaces” to Mrs Godfrey over the course of four days in June 2020.

He is accused of assisting Blakeney, who admitted to the scam and is serving 18 months in prison, to convince Mrs Godfrey that her son would be killed unless she met their repeated demands for cash.

Mr Kitsen-Walters suggested that Mr Burrows’ testimony was inconsistent and that he was therefore an untrustworthy witness.

The prosecutor pointed out that Mr Burrows took the stand to say that he had no idea why Blakeney had called him at 10.10am one morning when Ms Godfrey was said to have given him cash.

Mr Kitsen-Walters said that the defendant’s phone records showed him messaging Blakeney “bruh, she’s not here” two minutes before the call.

He added that Mr Burrows had claimed he did not know why Blakeney gave him an exemption letter for a curfew — the island was under Covid-19 lockdown at the time — despite later confessing that he was “hiding out at a bus stop”.

Mr Kitsen-Walters asked the jury: “What makes you think he wouldn’t lie because he was guilty?”

He refuted Mr Burrows’ earlier claims that he did not know he was assisting Blakeney in blackmail, saying that he should have known because the two lived together and were in “constant contact”.

He added that, because the pair struggled financially, like many others during Covid-19 lockdown, Mr Burrows and Blakeney had good reason to work together in the fraud.

Mr Kitsen-Walters said: “Teamwork makes the dream work – but in Ms Godfrey’s case, it was a nightmare.”

Marc Daniels, for the defence, told the jury that his client had a “different truth” that was not the narrative the Crown had painted.

He called into question the Crown’s idea that both men were desperate for cash, explaining that his client was working at the time.

Mr Daniels said: “When he says ‘I’ve got no money’, does that mean he’s flat broke or is it just an inference from two pages that speak to a wider context?”

Mr Daniels told the jury that constant communication between his client and Blakeney did not mean they were doing something “untoward” together.

He reminded the jury that being caught outside during curfew was a punishable and highly publicised offence, which would have justified Mr Burrows hiding.

Mr Daniels said that any inaccuracies in Mr Burrows’ story were likely mistakes in his recollection of events that took place more than four years ago.

He added that his client’s “suspicious” behaviour was due to anxiety from being in court for the first time.

Mr Daniels explained: “If you’ve never been charged with anything and have to come to court, with 14 people sitting and judging you, wouldn’t you feel anxious?”

He added: “I’m not trying to sell you anything – everything you have to buy came out of that witness box.”

The trial 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