The work of a Bermuda lawyer who defended a couple convicted of killing their baby was criticised by a British QC during their appeal.

According to William Taylor QC, Mark Pettingill was not properly prepared and was defective in his representation of Maatkari Tamerry and her husband Dr. Amenemhet Waset Amen-Ra Tamerry during their trial.

"It's pretty obvious he failed to consider matters he ought to have considered," said Mr. Taylor, acting for Dr. Tamerry, at the Appeal Court hearing yesterday.

The pair were convicted in 2004 of the manslaughter of their ten-month-old daughter A-Maya, after the jury heard she died of severe malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect.

Mrs. Tamerry was sentenced to one year in jail, with three years of probation, and was released in March 2005. Dr. Tamerry was jailed for five years and remains in custody. They are now seeking to have the verdict quashed.

In submissions yesterday, Mr. Taylor alleged that Mr. Pettingill should have been aware through pre-trial preparations that the cases of Dr. Tamerry - a former dentist — and his wife should have been handled by separate lawyers.

Mr. Taylor named several issues that, he said, should have rung alarm bells that there was a potential for a conflict of interest in Mr. Pettingill handling the case for both, due to scope for different defences for each.

He said codes of conduct for barristers both in Bermuda and also England and Wales said they should be aware of this risk when jointly representing more than one defendant.

Mr. Taylor cited one potentially conflicting issue as Mrs. Tamerry's history of mental illness — which, according to a medical report read to the Appeal Court, included hearing the cries of her dead baby.

Mr. Taylor also listed differences in the couple's recollections of the sequence of events, and over whether Mrs. Tamerry was the prime care-giver for the child. These, he claimed, could have led to differing defences.

He told the panel of judges hearing the appeal he was aware he had the benefit of hindsight, and was "very conscious that my standpoint in relation to these matters gives me 20/20 vision".

However, responding to a point made by President Justice Edward Zacca that the Appeal Court did not know what instructions Mr. Pettingill was given by his clients prior to the trial and what documents he saw, Mr. Taylor said even without this information it was clear he failed to consider issues he should have done.

He went on to tell the court that Mr. Pettingill did not take separate "proofs of evidence" - a type of statement - from each defendant prior to the trial, which he claimed would have disclosed issues of conflict.

He questioned what Mr. Pettingill meant when he said in an affidavit before the Court of Appeal that it was his practice to take written instructions from his clients and had "instructional notes" in the Tamerry case.

Mr. Taylor also told the court that, according to Dr. Tamerry, Mr. Pettingill took "scant" instructions from him and his wife. He claimed the result of the same lawyer representing both parties was that neither had their defence case put before the jury other than that they were loving and caring parents.

Moving on to the topic of what he called "defective representation" by Mr. Pettingill during the trial, Mr. Taylor said Dr. Tamerry did not have his interests protected and did not have a fair trial.

He claimed Dr. Tamerry told Mr. Pettingill he wished to give evidence, but the lawyer defied this instruction, telling him the case was an "emotional" one and only Mrs. Tamerry should give evidence.

Mrs. Tamerry is represented by Nigel Rumfitt QC — also visiting from Britain for the appeal — while Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette Graham-Allen acts for the Crown. The case continues.