Text messages, drug analysis, and expert testimony are the Crown’s mainstays in its case against an alleged Aitutaki drug dealer, Gray Ronald Pitomaki Turia.

However, the defence argues that the text messages lack merit and is seeking an acquittal due to insufficient evidence.

Turia, facing charges related to Operation Tuvake, appeared at the High Court in Avarua for a judge-alone trial on a charge of supplying or offering to supply class C controlled drugs (cannabis) between February 5, 2021, and December 15, 2021, in Aitutaki.

He denied the charge before Justice Christine Grice.

Senior Crown Law prosecutor Jamie Crawford in her opening statement said that Turia used the drug for personal use and also shared it with associates during the relevant period.

Crawford stated that Operation Tuvake in Aitutaki led to his arrest. Police executed a search warrant and found text messages revealing several suspects, including Turia. During his interview, Turia claimed the drugs were for medicinal purposes, not selling.

Crawford said this would be a short trial, emphasising that the Crown’s case relies heavily on expert analysis, drug experts, and the text messages.

Defence counsel Michelle Tangimama countered that her client, Turia, is a long-time cannabis user who started using it for back pain after relocating from Sydney to the Cook Islands.

Tangimama said Turia was a family man with six children and there was no need to supply drugs.

She argued that the text messages do not prove he supplied drugs and that a critical examination reveals no actual offer or supply, rendering them meritless and insufficient for conviction.

Police Detective Inspector Areumu Ingaua, the officer in charge of the investigation, testified yesterday.

He explained that during Operation Tuvake, they received names and numbers of persons of interest. In 2021, phone data analysis revealed potential dealing activities in the text messages. This data was then sent to a detective in New Zealand for further analysis.

During cross-examination, Tangimama highlighted the presence of “unknown” in the text messages and that the unknown person was not identified.’

She challenged Inspector Ingaua that if the other party in the text message was not identified what made him certain that the charge against her client was sufficient.

Inspector Ingaua maintained that the text messages were clear and explicitly stated Turia’s involvement in supplying.

However, Tangimama pointed out the absence of a name linked to the number and that the text messages were not the full part of the particulars.

The inspector insisted that the numbers of those charged were dealt with accordingly and reiterated “if you read all the text messages, you will see your client was there”.

He emphasised that the “unknown” person was communicating with Turia about drugs, suggesting both were involved in dealing.

When asked if the “unknown” person was the main negotiator, Inspector Ingaua clarified that they were both communicating about drugs.

The trial is expected to conclude today.