Cocaine trafficking charge dismissed after police fail to prove case

Last Updated on Tuesday, 4 November 2025, 21:48 by Writer

Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman on Tuesday dismissed a charge of possession of 6.7 kilogrammes of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was linked to the drug.

Mr Leon Nicholas was arrested on September 1, 2023 by police officers who raided the A1 Nightclub and Bar, Lot 19 Backroad Soesdyke, East Bank Demerara at around 10:00 p.m.

“Outside of finding Mr. Nicholas within the parameter of A1 Night Club and Banquet Hall, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that he had control of the cocaine. There is no evidence to prove that he knew of the existence of the cocaine in Room 5. And in these circumstances, I find Mr. Leon Nicholas not guilty and this case is dismissed,” the Magistrate was quoted as saying in a statement by Defence Lawyer Siand Dhurjon.

The court heard that the lawmen entered the apartment, which was rented to someone, through a window.

The case was supported by utility bills and a transport in the name of a third party that were put in to evidence by Mr. Nicholas.

The counsel for Mr. Nicholas had highlighted in his submissions to the Court that the cocaine was not found in his presence and that the premises had another owner who was never investigated and who had access to the apartment.

Several police officers were on the operation acting on intelligence they had gathered. Several vanloads of armed police drove in to the compound and went to an apartment rented out by Mr. Nicholas where they discovered 6.69kg of cocaine.

The Magistrate upheld submissions made by Mr Nicholas through Mr Dhurjon, that the prosecution failed to establish that Mr. Nicholas possessed 6.7kg of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. This came after lengthy proceedings which spanned over two years at the Diamond Magistrate Court.

Under the Narcotics and Psychotrophic Substances Control Act, where the police discovers any amount of cocaine above 2 grams, the law presumes that the cocaine was held for the purpose of trafficking and the defendant has the burden of proving otherwise to the Court.

Bail is also not to be granted in such cases unless special reasons exist under that legislation.

The case against Mr Nicholas was that he was keeping the cocaine in a salt bag in the toilet area of the apartment in question.

The court heard that police officers gained access to the apartment through a window as Mr. Nicholas said he did not have the key.

The police came under close scrutiny under cross-examination by Mr. Dhurjon on behalf of Mr. Nicholas. They were all further challenged as to whether the search was done in the presence of the accused and whether the accused made any admission of ownership. Mr. Nicholas elected to give sworn testimony and subjected himself to cross-examination from the prosecutor.

Mr Nicholas’ case was that the apartment was rented out by him a month prior to the search and only that individual had the key. He stated that this man paid in advance for the entire month and this is what he also explained to the police.

Mr. Nicholas testified that a window to the room through which the police had access was unlocked. The defence’s case was also that Mr Nicholas never gave any admission of wrongdoing to the police.

Magistrate Latchman was heavily influenced by the sworn testimony of the defendant and the submissions made by Mr. Dhurjon.

In an invited comment Mr. Nicholas thanked Magistrate Latchman for her dedication to considering carefully the evidence and for vindicating him.

He extended thanks to his attorney for faithfully standing by him and for intervening in his case by obtaining bail from the High Court for him after he was remanded to prison for a lengthy period in 2023, according to the lawyer’s statement.