A drug dealer found guilty of possessing cannabis with intent to supply has gone to the Court of Appeal in an effort to get the conviction overturned.

Shae Butterfield was found guilty of the offence after he was arrested at a football match at BAA field in Pembroke in February 2019.

At his trial before magistrate Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo, three police officers testified that they were called to the sports ground following reports that a firearm was on the premises.

They approached a group of around 20 people who immediately dispersed — apart from Butterfield, who remained where he stood.

The officers said they thought it was unusual that he did not move and noticed what appeared to be a ziplock bag under his feet.

As one officer began to move Butterfield, they saw that the bag contained several smaller bags and told him that they were going to search him under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Butterfield then reportedly ran, sprinting over the football field and on to Woodlands Road with the officers chasing him.

Police caught him near Butterfield and Vallis and searched him. They discovered a lock knife and $2,668 in cash. One officer told the court that when he prized open the defendant’s hand, he dropped two small, red ziplock bags.

Two officers testified that they saw Butterfield throw items from his pockets as he fled.

Representing himself at trial, Butterfield denied that he had been standing over the ziplock bag.

He claimed that the money he was carrying on the night of his arrest was a downpayment made to him the previous day for a cabling work project he was working on.

He admitted that he did have drugs on him at the time of his arrest but said he had recently bought his jacket from a family member and did not know the drugs were in the pocket.

An appeal against the conviction was dismissed in the Supreme Court last December.

In the Court of Appeal yesterday, lawyer Sara-Ann Tucker, representing Butterfield, said the conviction should be overturned on the same grounds she gave during the Supreme Court appeal.

She claimed that there were discrepancies in the trial testimonies of several arresting officers, noting that one officer had said he saw Butterfield discard a singular “something” from his pocket when being chased, while a second officer referred to “several items” being discarded.

She also pointed out that one officer had said that he and a colleague were outside the BAA ground when they were alerted to the fact that a suspect was attempting to escape arrest. His colleague testified that they were in the grounds when the alarm was raised.

Ms Tucker said that, when being examined in chief by the Crown, one police officer recounted details of Butterfield’s arrest. Under cross examination, the same officer said he could not remember some aspects of the incident.

But Justice of Appeal Ian Kawaley pointed out that it would be reasonable for the officer to not have “an independent recollection” of an event that had taken place several years earlier but that he could still provide details of the event if he referred to contemporaneous notes.

Ms Tucker also argued that Mr Tokunbo had failed to explain why he did not believe Butterfield to be a credible witness and that Butterfield’s claim that he did not know that the packets in his possession contained drugs was not addressed.

She said: “There’s no dispute from the appellant that he had drugs on his person, confirmed by whatever analysis, but it has always been the appellant’s position that he did not have any knowledge of the drugs.“

But Mr Justice Kawaley said the onus was on Butterfield to show that he was unaware the packets in his jacket pocket had contained drugs.

He said: “Where someone is found to be in possession of an article containing a controlled drug, it is presumed they have knowledge unless they can prove otherwise. It is incumbent on the defendant to raise the issue of knowledge.”

Responding to Ms Tucker’s concern that Mr Tokunbo had failed to explain why he did not view Butterfield as a credible witness, the Appeals Court panel pointed to the mountain of evidence against the appellant.

Justice of Appeal Geoffrey Bell noted that the $2,668 in cash found on Butterfield was made up of scores of lower value notes, including $10, $5, and $2 bills along with some small denomination US currency.

Mr Justice Bell said that it was “unbelievable” that a contractor would have paid Butterfield such a large sum in small notes and suggested that the money was revenue from multiple drug sales.

Mr Justice Kawaley asked why Butterfield had fled when approached by police and removed items from his pockets while doing so.

After Ms Tucker had completed her submissions, Adley Duncan, for the Crown, rose to speak.

He was stopped by Sir Christopher Clarke, who said: “I don’t think we need trouble you Mr Duncan.”

The Court of Appeal will deliver its ruling at a later date.