The Crown could not be held responsible for holding alleged heroin smuggler Andrew Hall in custody for almost three years without trial, the Appeal Court has ruled.

The Jamaican walked free on charges of importing $1.8 million in January when Assistant Justice Archibald Warner ruled his constitutional rights had been breached because he had been held without trial for so long.

Hall, 39, who would have faced between 14 and 18 years in jail if found guilty, fled Bermuda in a private jet on a temporary passport within hours of being released and is believed to now be in Jamaica.

Last week, the Crown won a decision at the Court of Appeal that Hall?s constitutional rights had not been violated, which meant the indictment against him was reinstated.

Acting Director of Public prosecutions Kulandra Ratneser has said the Crown will attempt to extradite Hall back to Bermuda to stand trial.

Hall was charged with fellow Jamaicans Barris Dawkins ? also known as Rudolph Everton Pusey ? and Teartia Smith with importing $1.8 million of heroin into Bermuda in March 2001. Dawkins was jailed for 18 years and Smith for 14 years when they pleaded guilty to the offence.

But the case against Hall dragged on for almost three years due to a large number of adjournments. But Appeal Court President Edward Zacca, sitting with Sir Anthony Evans and Philip Clough, ruled the large number adjournments and hold ups could not be blamed on the Crown, so Hall?s constitutional rights had not been violated. In their written judgement issued yesterday, they wrote: ?The court finds it difficult to identify any period of significant delay which can be said to be both unreasonable and the responsibility of the Crown. Nor in our view it is possible to attribute any unreasonable delay to the court or to any of the administrative agencies of Bermuda.

?It was not unreasonable, in our view, for the October 2002 hearing to be adjourned until May 2003, nor for that hearing to be adjourned until January 2004 in the circumstances of this case.

?It does not follow that delays, even substantial delays, can always be avoided. In practice, realism intrudes on what the legal system ideally should achieve.

?Each adjournment was ordered by a judge, and it seems to us that there are no grounds for holding that either the Crown or the Courts administration was at fault or responsible for any unreasonable delay.

?In these circumstances, it may be difficult to say that there was any breach of section 6 (1) of the Constitution for which the Crown might be held liable.

?Although the applicant (Hall) personally was not at fault, or responsible for any significant delay, the fact is counsel representing him did not object to the co-accused?s application for an adjournment in October 2002. Indeed, he expressly assented to it.

?In our judgement, as a general rule, if the applicant has assented to or has not opposed applications for adjournments by his co-defendent, he is not entitled to say that the adjournment has caused unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

?We hold the history of the actual proceedings has to be taken into account, including the extent to which the co-accused was responsible for delays in bringing the matter to trial.

?In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the Crown has not deprived the applicant of his right to a trial ?within a reasonable time? in the present case.?