A couple convicted of killing their baby daughter are set to find out today whether the Court of Appeal has cleared their names.

Maatkari Tamerry - who has already completed a one-year jail sentence for the manslaughter of ten-month-old A-Maya — would not face a re-trial if the verdict is overturned.

However, her dentist husband Dr. Amenemhet Waset Amen-Ra Tamerry, who is due to be released after two thirds of his five year sentence this October, could have to face a jury again even if his conviction is quashed.

The couple was found guilty in 2004 of manslaughter, after the jury heard A-Maya died of severe malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect at their hands. High-profile Bermuda lawyer Mark Pettingill, who represented the couple during their Supreme Court trial, has been the focus of criticism throughout the appeal case handled by two British QCs.

On Tuesday, William Taylor QC, acting for Dr. Tamerry in the appeal, argued that Mr. Pettingill was not properly prepared and was defective in his representation of his client in not heeding his instructions.

Mr. Taylor said Mr. Pettingill should never have handled the cases for both defendants as various issues - including Mrs. Tamerry’s history of mental illness - meant there was scope for potentially conflicting defences for each that were never put before the jury.

Yesterday, Nigel Rumfitt QC, representing Mrs. Tamerry, claimed Mr. Pettingill failed in not telling the jury about her history of post-natal psychiatric problems. He drew the attention of the appeal judges to a report from psychiatrist Dr. Paul Harlow, commissioned by lawyer Elizabeth Christopher, who represented Mrs. Tamerry at her September 2004 sentencing. His findings included the possibility that Mrs. Tamerry ‘s mental problems meant she failed to recognise her baby’s condition.

Mr. Rumfitt said Chief Justice Richard Ground drew attention to these issues during the sentencing, and argued that the judge’s observation that none of this was put before the jury indicated “it ought to have been.”

He also made submissions regarding two letters from Dr. Harlow in 2003 that resulted in the trial being adjourned because of Mrs. Tamerry’s mental state.

The psychiatrist suggested she was suffering post-natal depression likely to have occurred in the first month after the birth of her daughter, with symptoms including severe psychotic depression and hearing the cries of her dead child.

Mr. Pettingill was asked to give an affidavit — a declaration made on oath — to the Court of Appeal saying whether he saw these two documents, dating from a period before he was the couple’s lawyer.

He responded by saying he had neither seen them or had any knowledge of their contents, and his clients did not share them with him. However, Mr. Rumfitt said that even in light of this, the adjournment of the trial in 2003 meant Mr. Pettingill should have been “put on inquiry” in relation to the issue of mental problems suffered by Mrs. Tamerry.

“This lady had a perfectly good defence and it wasn’t run,” said Mr. Rumfitt, telling the judges this “would have transformed the nature of these proceedings as far as she’s concerned.”

Mr. Rumfitt also argued that Mrs. Tamerry was entitled to have a “good character direction” given to the jury by the judge about her lack of any previous convictions. He claimed she did not get one because of Mr. Pettingill’s lack of legal knowledge about the use of such directions. Mr. Rumfitt invited the Court of Appeal to conclude that “Mr. Pettingill did not know the law of Bermuda and was behaving with flagrant incompetence” which meant Mrs. Tamerry lost her case.

Responding, Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette Graham-Allen said Mr. Pettingill did not have a conflict of interest in representing both defendants and that while psychiatric evidence could have provided Mrs. Tamerry with a possible defence, the prosecution case had been “overwhelming” and such evidence was likely to have been rejected by the jury. She added that there was evidence Mr. Pettingill did indeed act on the instructions of Dr. Tamerry and that that the lack of a “good character” direction did not mean Mrs. Tamerry did not receive a fair trial.

Mrs Graham-Allen said it would be in the public interest for Dr. Tamerry to be re-tried if his conviction was quashed, but not so in the case of Mrs. Tamerry.

The panel of judges is due to give the outcome of the appeal this afternoon.