A Canadian accused of smuggling almost $700,000 of cannabis and cocaine into the island was described as “a prolific liar” during his Supreme Court trial yesterday.

Alexta Gill arrived in Bermuda with his girlfriend on a WestJet flight from Toronto on March 2 last year.

One of the couple’s two suitcases was not put on the aircraft, and came to Bermuda on another flight two days later.

When searched by customs officers in Mr Gill’s absence, it was found to contain 9,472 grams of cannabis bricks wrapped in black paper and 800 grams of liquid cocaine concealed in a whiskey bottle. The drugs had a street value of $676,736.

Mr Gill was arrested at the Fourways Inn, where he was staying, the following day.

The Crown closed its case during yesterday’s session, after which Mr Gill was asked if he wished to testify or call any witnesses in his defence. He declined.

The prosecution and defence teams then delivered their closing arguments to the jury.

The Crown’s evidence depended heavily on two interviews that Mr Gill gave to detectives while in police custody shortly after his arrest.

The jury had earlier seen video footage of the two interviews and were also provided with transcripts.

Prosecutor T’Deana Spencer said that Mr Gill’s answers were littered with inconsistencies.

During his first interview, he steadfastly maintained that he knew nothing about the drugs found in his suitcase.

In a second interview a day later, he said that he believed he may have been “set up”.

He went on to give a third version of events, claiming that his life was being threatened by someone to whom he owed money.

Addressing the jury, Ms Spencer said: “A number of lies have been told. The defendant is a prolific liar and you saw that during the course of those two interviews. You have got to decide where the truth lies.”

Ms Spencer also questioned Mr Gill’s demeanour during the interviews, pointing out that he appeared “unsure, shaky and confused”.

She said that if Mr Gill’s life was under threat, he had opportunities to inform authorities either in Canada or once he arrived in Bermuda.

The prosecutor also questioned why Mr Gill and his girlfriend brought so much luggage with them.

“They came for four nights with two suitcases and two carry-ons. That seems a bit excessive,” she said.

Ms Spencer did suggest that other parties might have been involved in the conspiracy “but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he confessed just to get out of it”.

Representing the defendant, attorney Susan Mulligan told the jury that the Crown had very little evidence to support its case.

She noted that Mr Gill’s suitcase had been left at the airport in Toronto when Mr Gill boarded his flight, and did not arrive on the island until two days later.

Criticising the police, Ms Mulligan said: ”We know that the luggage sat in Toronto fro two days. It would have been good to know what happened to it — how it was stored and who had access to it.“

Ms Mulligan reminded the jury of the testimony of one investigating officer and narcotics expert who agreed that, because no attempt was made to hide the drugs when they were placed in the suitcase, it had all the hallmarks of “an inside job” in which others, such as airport employees, may have been involved.

Ms Mulligan also provided reasons why Mr Gill may have changed his story when questioned by police.

She pointed out that during his first interview, the defendant consistently said he had no knowledge of the drugs.

During the second interview, he began giving different answers — because detectives were refusing to believe his original version of events.

She said: ”These are people who hold your future in their hands and they’re saying that they don’t believe you.

“It’s human nature to want to say what someone wants to hear. He just wanted to get home. Who wouldn’t?”

The trial will resume on Monday, when it is expected that the jury will be sent out to consider its verdict.

• 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