The Court of Appeal has rejected ?terrible accusations? that a defence lawyer colluded with Police in order to frame a Jamaican drug dealer.

Lawyer Larry Scott acted briefly for Willston Ezekiel Davis after he was arrested by Police for supplying $70,000 worth of crack cocaine to a nursery school teacher. Davis denied the offence but was later found guilty after a Supreme Court trial. The married construction worker and father-of-seven was jailed for 12 years last October.

On Tuesday, barrister Charles Richardson, appealing against the conviction, claimed Mr. Scott had been ?foisted? on Davis by Police and had advised him to sign a confession which neither of them had read.

Mr. Richardson said Davis, who cannot read or write, was initially represented by Peter Farge who advised him to make no comment on the allegations.

He said Mr. Scott was brought in after an officer told Davis he would be laughed out of court if he did not make a statement.

?He (Davis) said he signed that particular statement on the advice of an attorney that was foisted on him by the Police without the attorney ever having read the document himself,? said Mr. Richardson. ?That?s the essence of the complaint. This particular attorney did not represent the interests of Mr. Davis as in fact he should have. In fact, he was an attorney who was not summoned by Mr. Davis.?

Mr. Richardson said he was not ?in any way trying to impugn Mr. Scott?s professional reputation? but claimed it could be argued that Mr. Scott was acting as an agent for the Police.

Mr. Richardson claimed that the trial judge, Chief Justice Richard Ground, gave a misdirection to the jury by telling them that it did not matter if the statement made by Davis was made under improper circumstances as long as they believed it to be true.

Mr. Richardson said if the jury found that the situation involving Mr. Scott was not in the interests of Davis they should have been directed to disregard the confession. ?This defendant was deprived of an opportunity to secure an acquittal,? he said. ?In the absence of a confession, there was nothing.?

He asked the three Court of Appeal judges to quash the conviction and order a retrial.

But Mr. Justice Austin Ward told Mr. Richardson: ?You are going to devaluate the lawyer. I don?t think that one lawyer should do that to another.?

Fellow judge Sir Charles Mantell said: ?The allegation being made against Mr. Scott is of the most serious kind. It?s an allegation of colluding with the Police to frame this man.?

Court of Appeal President Mr. Justice Edward Zacca asked what evidence there was that the statement had been made under oppression or improper circumstances. ?If there isn?t any or it?s insufficient then the direction is irrelevant.?

He said that ?all these terrible accusations? were being made against Mr. Scott by the accused ?without any evidence to support it?.

?This is a very serious accusation being made that there was really collusion between the Police and Mr. Scott. There is no evidence to support any of that. The fact is an experienced lawyer was present.?

The judges threw out the appeal and said they would give their reasons at a later date.