face trial on charges of stealing more than $100,000 from the Bank of Bermuda.

The Court of Appeal yesterday reversed Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward's decision in July to quash Shabazz's indictment before his trial began.

After hearing arguments yesterday from Crown Counsel Miss Sharon Kenny and defence lawyer Mr. Ian Kawaley, the Court of Appeal ruled Mr. Justice Ward was wrong to find Shabazz could not be charged with the theft.

And it ordered the case be remitted to Supreme Court for trial. Court of Appeal president the Hon. Sir Denys Roberts said reasons would be given at a later date.

Shabazz, formerly the bank's assistant manager of retail banking operations, had pleaded not guilty to stealing the funds between July 25 and September 14, 1988, while an employee of the Bank.

The Court heard Shabazz had been given a loan by the bank to pay off his mortgage at LP Gutteridge Limited.

However, he used only part of the money for that purpose, paying off other debts with the remainder. As a result he was charged with stealing.

Mr. Kawaley's argument in July was that under the Criminal Code, in a debtor-creditor relationship, a written direction specifying how the money must be used must be broken before charges could be laid.

"As there is no such document, the count of stealing is not properly included in the indictment,'' Mr. Kawaley said.

But Miss Kenny argued yesterday Mr. Kawaley should have made the application to quash the indictment during Shabazz' preliminary inquiry in Magistrates' Court.

The three Appeal Judges agreed, with Sir Denys saying, "I think you missed your boat.'' Miss Kenny further argued Mr. Justice Ward had interfered with the Attorney General's power and had taken over the function of the jury by deciding there was insufficient evidence for a conviction.

She submitted the judge should not have even looked at the depositions filed in Magistrates' Court.

Mr. Kawaley argued the section under which the Crown chose to charge Shabazz restricted its right to prosecute when certain conditions were not met, such as the existence of a document specifying how Shabazz should have used the loan.

Further, he said, Mr. Justice Ward was entitled to look at the depositions and quash the indictment on the basis the section prohibited the Crown from prosecuting on facts disclosed in those depositions.

Mr. Kawaley said he had not wanted to make such an application at the Magistrates' Court level.