Prosecutors have failed to prove that a man charged with the possession of almost $1 million of heroin knew the drugs were in his van, it has been claimed.

During closing submissions in the Supreme Court trial of Winston Paynter yesterday, defence lawyer Marc Daniels told the jury that the Crown’s case was full of “glaring inconsistencies” and “vacuous gaps”.

Mr Paynter, a temperature control technician, was stopped in his work van by a mobile police patrol while travelling between jobs on the afternoon of April 11, 2019.

Police later found a manilla envelope in a white plastic bag in the rear of the vehicle which contained 350 grammes of heroin.

In earlier evidence, a police officer testified that he saw Mr Paynter throw the bag into the back of the van as he was being pulled over. Mr Paynter was arrested on suspicion of being in possession of a controlled substance.

In a subsequent search of his home on North Shore Road, Devonshire a slew of drug- related items – including similar envelopes hidden behind a water heater, a cutting board containing traces of cannabis, and 17 bottles of a sleeping aid allegedly used to ‘cut’ the heroin before it was sold - were found.

Six rounds of firearms ammunition were also recovered.

But Mr Paynter, 42, claimed that although the North Shore Road apartment was his official address, he had effectively moved in with his long-term partner months earlier.

He said he allowed a younger cousin – who had been “getting into mischief” – to stay at his apartment on an informal basis and had no idea that his home was being used as a heroin factory.

In the witness box, Mr Paynter said he drove his van to his home on the night before he was stopped, and left it there unlocked after his cousin, who was at the property with some companions, asked to borrow some tools. His partner picked him up shortly after, and they drove to her apartment, also in Devonshire, where they spent the night.

In his closing statement, prosecutor Alan Richards said that the mountain of evidence proved that Mr Paynter was running a major drugs operation out of his apartment.

Mr Richards said: “If you look at the totality of the evidence, Mr Paynter’s suggestion that this is nothing to do with him is a fabrication – it makes no sense.

“We know he had access to the North Shore Road apartment – he wasn’t keeping clear of the place and he is now making an effort to distance himself from it.”

But Mr Daniels hit back, claiming that the prosecution had provided only some of the pieces to a 350-piece jigsaw puzzle.

“There are so many unresolved questions,” he said.

Mr Daniels pointed to discrepancies in the testimony of the four arresting police officers.

He said no reason for Mr Paynter being pulled over in the first place had been given. The Crown had also failed to produce fingerprint evidence which could have shown if Mr Paynter had handled the plastic bag found in his van.

He said Mr Paynter had been unable to explain how the bag came to be in his van because he did not know it was there until he was stopped by the police.

He also stressed to the jury that it was the Crown’s duty to prove that Mr Paynter had known about it beforehand – something that they failed to do.

The defence lawyer questioned why the Crown had not called an expert handwriting witness to testify that a list of incriminating names and addresses found at Mr Paynter’s apartment had been written by him.

The fact that Mr Paynter gave his North Shore Road address when questioned by police also pointed to his innocence, according to Mr Daniels – had the defendant known that the property was being used as a dispatch centre for narcotics, he could have legitimately told detectives that he lived with his partner at another address.

Mr Daniels said Mr Paynter was a hard-working man in full-time employment who could not afford to put his own private car on the road.

He said: “This man works and he is also all about football and getting involved with the youth – there is no evidence of a lavish lifestyle.

“You should ask what has the Crown done to prove that Mr Paynter is lying to you.

“Even though the police found all these different things, they don’t point to guilt – they raise questions.

“The facts are simple, but proving that Mr Paynter was aware of these items is a very difficult task indeed – as it should be.

“Because if you are left saying ‘I don’t know’, then there’s no outcome other than not guilty.”

The jury is expected to retire to consider its verdict later today after Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe has given directions.

•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.