time'' because of the high number of adjournments in his case.

Lawyer Mr. Delroy Duncan argued in Supreme Court yesterday that Magistrate the Wor. Cheryl-Ann Mapp failed to weigh the evidence against Robinson properly because of the 31 adjournments in the year-long sexual assault trial.

Robinson, 28, denied breaking into a woman's home during the early hours of July 25, 1993 and sexually assaulting her while she was sleeping.

He was convicted on December 6, 1994 and Mr. Duncan asked that the sentencing be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Robinson was later fired from his job with the Police Service. Yesterday Mr.

Duncan said he was appealing the conviction on the grounds that Ms Mapp failed to afford the appellant a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and that upon weighing up all the evidence the conviction could not be supported and was rendered against the weight of the evidence.

He also stated that "the Magistrate erred in the law by not formally ruling that the assertion made by counsel for the prosecution in his closing speech to the effect that there was collusion between the defence witnesses who had stated that the complainant was seen talking to the appellant on a number of occasions was wrong in law because the assertion had not been put to the defence witnesses during cross examination''.

"In the absence of a clear ruling rejecting the submission made by the prosecutor there is evidence that in finding the appellant guilty on the two charges the Magistrate either directly or indirectly accepted this assertion despite the fact that it had not been put to defence witnesses who asserted that the complainant was seen talking to the appellant.'' Mr. Duncan also said the Magistrate erred in law in that she allowed collateral questions to be asked of a defence witness in relation to entries made in his notebook with respect to his attendance at the residence of the appellant when those entries bore no relevance to the issues.

He added that he had difficulty seeing how the Ms Mapp arrived at her decision.

"It is the duty of the trial judge to consider all evidence in order to arrive at a conclusion, but she did not do that. Her ruling was that all the defence witnesses could not be believed on the issue of a relationship between the complainant and the defendant.'' Attorney General Mr. Elliott Mottley QC said: "One can easily criticise the reasoning of the Magistrate but the facts are here. What is significant is the fact that when the officer spoke to the complainant about the incident she said she did not know Andrew Robinson.'' Mr. Mottley added that Robinson's Police friends had formed the opinion that the perpetrator was Robinson after hearing the description the complainant had given.

"Why would she allege that he did these things if he didn't, he wasn't being trapped.'' He also said because defence witnesses said they saw the complainant at a few of the same functions the defendant was attended did not mean that she had to have known him.

And when the witnesses stated that they had sometimes saw them in a group talking it "does not mean the complainant was talking to the defendant, she could have been talking to someone else,'' Mr. Mottley added.

On the issue of adjournments, Mr. Mottley said he did not know if it was proper grounds of appeal. "It has not been shown that the delay led to a miscarriage of justice and it did not prejudice the accused.'' Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ground said he will issue a written judgment next week.