The legal system has been neglected and underfunded for decades, a judge said after the case against a defendant charged with trying to import $430,000 of drugs was dropped because of delays.

Assistant Puisne Judge Mark Pettingill made his remarks in a ruling on the case, which had dragged on for more than seven years.

Mr Justice Pettingill ruled that Edward Jaloni Albouy should no longer face prosecution because of repeated delays to his case.

He agreed with Mr Albouy’s lawyer that charges against him should be stayed and said that the case highlighted “the abject failure of successive government administrations going back over 30 years to prioritise and properly fund the justice system — particularly the criminal justice system, which has been treated as the proverbial step child for decades”.

Mr Albouy, 31, was arrested at LF Wade International Airport on September 3, 2017 after customs officers found more than $430,000 of drugs in his luggage, including ecstasy, cannabis and cannabis resin.

He went on trial twice for the offences of importation and possession with intent to supply.

At his first trial in March 2019, he said that he did not know the drugs had been placed in his luggage. That trial ended in a hung jury, with the seven-man, five-woman panel unable to come to a majority verdict after several hours of deliberation.

A second trial was instigated but did not take place until July 2023 because of a series of delays.

That trial collapsed when, in closing arguments, defence lawyer Susan Mulligan told the jury that the suitcase containing the cannabis did not contain any “dryer sheets” — an item smugglers use to disguise the smell of the drug.

However, it was later disclosed that dryer sheets were contained in an evidence bag that the jury had examined. As a result, the trial judge decided to abandon the trial and discharge the jury.

Ms Mulligan then made an abuse of process application, arguing that her client would not be able to have a fair trial because of the length of time between the alleged offence and the date of a third trial.

Mr Justice Pettingill agreed.

In his ruling, he said that if proceedings had been delayed “unreasonably”, the court should go on consider whether or not the accused could have a fair trial.

Mr Justice Pettingill said: “This of course ties in with the Bermuda constitutional provision of right to a fair trial in a reasonable time.

“I am of the position that there must sensibly come a point, in considering the type of case before the court, that serious prejudice arises somewhat obviously and is effectively in and of itself enough to warrant a stay without convoluted analysis or esoteric reasoning on finding a way to justify a trial proceeding.

“Given the agreed facts of this matter it is evident that in large part the issues of delay faced by the court were indeed a significant part of the delay issue, albeit they were unavoidable in most instances.

“Nonetheless, in my judgment these are not matters that can be properly borne by the applicant

“In my judgment on the basis of the inordinate delay in bringing this uncomplicated case to trial I find that the matter should be stayed.

“I am of the position that the Bermuda Constitution in creating a fundamental right to a fair trial in a reasonable time creates a right that, in particular circumstances, such as arise in this case, justify a case being stayed without the need for the court to go on and consider in great depth whether or not it can effectively create the potential to have a fair trial.”

Mr Justice Pettingill also raised concerns about the handling of evidence.

He said: “It is significant to note that it was agreed by both counsel for the defendant and by Mr [Alan] Richards for the Crown that they had occasion to examine the suitcase and its contents and that neither had observed any dryer sheets.

“The fact that the jury discovered them raised a troubling question about the overall handling of the exhibits in the case and Supreme Court trials generally.”

Pointing out that there was “a dearth” of regulations governing the handling of trial evidence, Mr Justice Pettingill added: “What occurred in this case was nothing short of a debacle in that, as a result of necessity, the police had to deal with the exhibits both before and during the trial.

“This state of affairs does nothing short of opening the proverbial Pandora's box for unfounded allegations to be levelled at the police with regard to tampering with exhibits if some issue arises as it did here.

“I would make the observation that there is no allegation that there was any misconduct by the police in the current matter before the court but something clearly went awry with regard to the handling of an exhibit.”

Referring to earlier calls for an up-to-date recording system, he said: “The undeniable logic in having such a system in place is that it would serve to have a clear record of proceedings, which is in the interest of all parties and this would impact hugely on delays and disjointed trials.

“The cost of such a system would obviously be offset by the cost associated with the time of a lengthy trial. Additionally, applications for abuse attributable to delay, which on observation appear to be a regular occurrence in this jurisdiction, would be greatly ameliorated.”

• 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