A LOCAL man, jailed for taking part in a plot to smuggle millions of pounds worth of cannabis and cocaine into the UK, has failed in an appeal court bid to clear his name.

Carl Platten, of McConnell Close, Aston Fields, Bromsgrove, was convicted at Worcester Crown Court of conspiracy to supply cocaine and conspiracy to supply cannabis in March 2004. He was jailed for nine years.

He appealed, but Lord Justice Waller, sitting with Mr Justice Gray and Mrs Justice Cox at the Appeal Court, London, refused to quash Platten's convictions - dismissing argument that they were 'unsafe'.

Two of the men jailed with Platten - Martin "George" Formby, aged 38, of Shrubbery Road, Bromsgrove, and Stephen Shannon, 41, of Shelfield Close, Coventry - also failed to get their jail terms cut.

Formby was sentenced to 14 years after pleading guilty to conspiracy to supply cannabis and conspiracy to supply cocaine, while Shannon received 16 years after pleading guilty to conspiracy to supply cannabis, conspiracy to supply cocaine and conspiracy to supply amphetamines

Platten's barrister, Ian Winter, had argued that the original trial judge wrongly allowed evidence of conversations which took place between those involved in the plot to be put before the jury and that it was unfair as Platten wasn't present when the conversations took place.

The barrister also argued that Formby and Shannon had simply been handed sentences that were "manifestly excessive".

It was alleged that Platten used his job as a logistics manager at Coventry Airport to track shipments. He said he thought he was looking out for a bona fide delivery.

But, dismissing Platten's appeal, Lord Justice Waller said the evidence of the conversations was "admissible" before the jury.

He concluded: "No point was taken in the course of the trial as to the admissibility of any of this evidence as far as Platten was concerned.

"The admissible evidence against Platten was compelling and we have no doubt about the safety of his conviction. In those circumstances, his appeal against conviction must be dismissed."

Dismissing the other two's sentence appeals, the judge said: "We take the view that the sentences were not arguably manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case."