ordered a retrial.

Brian Carlton Rogers, 34, was sent to prison in April after he was convicted of escaping lawful custody, entering a dwelling house and stealing.

"It seems to me this man has not been tried properly,'' Court of Appeal President Sir James Astwood said. "This whole thing does not make sense.'' At his trial in April, Rogers initially was arraigned on a five-count indictment that was later amended to reflect only the charges he denied committing.

But this second "indictment'', although signed by Crown counsel Peter DeJulio, was not signed by the Registrar and was thus not legally a valid document.

Nevertheless at his trial, the jury was directed to return not guilty verdicts to the charge that Rogers broke into a woman's home and robbed her of a handbag and personal items worth $300.

The trial Judge Norma Wade then instructed Det. Con. Terrance Maxwell to draft an alternative count of stealing on a piece of yellow paper which was put to Rogers and he pleaded guilty.

"The existence of this third document is the most mysterious,'' Senior Crown Counsel Brian Calhoun said.

"I am not sure what the second indictment means or the third indictment''.

"I will concede that the trial judge instructed the Police officer to do it on a scrap piece of paper and Rogers was rearraigned.'' On the basis of that guilty plea Rogers was sentenced on April 11, 1996.

"This is a curious procedure,'' Mr. Calhoun added.

He pointed out that the original five-count indictment was properly valid with both Mr. DeJulio and the Registrar's signatures.

However the second "indictment'' only carried Mr. DeJulio's signature and not the Registrar's which rendered it legally invalid.

"It was a sloppily performed but not perfected piece of paper,'' Mr. Calhoun said. "But the third indictment was the most curious indeed.'' Mr. Calhoun said Mrs. Justice Wade's first mistake was to order the jury to acquit Rogers of the robbery charge and then let the jury go and rearraign the accused on a charge of stealing -- "an indictment that had been scribbled on a piece of paper by a Policeman.'' The panel will deliver its reasons for the annulment in due course.

Rogers was represented by lawyer Mark Pettingill.