A JEWELLER convicted of laundering drugs money by converting it into gold bullion appeared in the Court of Appeal yesterday to argue that there was ‘no case to answer’.
In 2020, Darius Pearce was found guilty of three counts of becoming concerned in the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property. He was sentenced the following year to seven and a half years in prison.
Pearce, who has represented himself throughout his case but was yesterday assisted by Advocate Jeremy Garrood, also alleged that he had not been granted legal assistance during his trial and said his sentence was ‘manifestly excessive’.
The appeal follows a failed plot by a gang to try to smuggle almost £1 million of drugs into Jersey on a sailing yacht.
The jeweller was previously described as having played a pivotal role in the operation by channelling the gang’s money into the UK.
Setting out the grounds for the first part of his appeal, which was against his conviction, Pearce said he took issue with the semantics of the words ‘use’ and ‘facilitate’ during the trial and the wording of the law.
In what was described as a ‘technical’ argument, Pearce denied ‘facilitating’ the gang’s activities. He then used a number of analogies – which included the ownership and repair of the Island’s roads, the Royal Court building and repairing clients’ watches – to try to explain his position to the court.
Pearce also claimed he had been denied the opportunity ‘to choose’ which advocate assisted him during his trial because, following his arrest, his bank accounts had been frozen.
He told the court there was no case to answer.
Court of Appeal judge Lord David Anderson, questioning Pearce, said Advocate Rebecca Morley-Kirk had been appointed for him during his trial but that the defendant had dismissed her.
He added that Advocate Ian Jones had been appointed during his sentencing but that he had chosen to represent himself during that hearing.
In response, Pearce claimed that Advocate Morley-Kirk had previously ‘worked with the Crown and police service’ and that he did not think that she was ‘comfortable’ dealing with matters ‘against the police’.
He added that he had refused the help of Advocate Jones as he had not had enough time to read the legal argument he was intending to put forward, he still had some outstanding questions about the prosecution’s case and he had not understood ‘what was going on’.
Turning his attention to his sentence, which he described as ‘manifestly excessive’, Pearce claimed that the value of the drugs was much lower than the prosecution was suggesting. Referring to previous money-laundering cases, he suggested that the prosecution should have put forward a starting point of one year.
The Bailiff, Timothy Le Cocq, was sitting with James McNeill and Lord Anderson. Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit was prosecuting.
The court reserved judgment and said it hoped to return a verdict this week.
