incident in which a man was in collision with a policeman's car allegedly after the officer had vowed to "get him.'' Mr. Hall, who represents Mr. Keith Williams, asked for the files after Attorney General Mr. Walter Maddocks had decided not to prosecute D.c. Alex Severin over the incident, which happened at Crawl Hill, in Hamilton Parish, in February.

After studying the reports, Mr. Hall will decide whether to bring a private prosecution on Mr. Williams' behalf or mount a civil case against D.c.

Severin.

Yesterday, Mr. Hall again criticised Mr. Maddocks for refusing to let a court decide if there was a prima facie case for the narcotics officer to answer.

"The Attorney General is not the judge of fact,'' said Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall said that, when faced with conflicting evidence from a policeman whose evidence supported D.c. Severin and a member of the public whose evidence favoured Mr. Williams, the Attorney General had apparently sided with the officer.

Mr. Hall was referring to an allegation by a person who said that D.c. Severin had vowed to "get'' Mr. Williams, apparently after an unsuccessful search for drugs by the officer and a colleague. The two officers deny that any such threat was made.

"It is not the Attorney General's role to determine the credibility of witnesses,'' said Mr. Hall. "In effect, he's decided that police officers are more credible than ordinary citizens, and that's totally wrong.'' Mr. Hall also called into doubt the relevance of evidence of two independent witnesses who had said that D.c. Severin's car had not been travelling above the speed limit when they saw it near the time of the incident.

"Speed is not the ultimate issue,'' said Mr. Hall. "It may well be that eye witnesses or people driving towards the scene did not notice anything improper about speed. But the question is whether the officer sped up before the incident.'' Mr. Hall said he did not want a trial by media and said he was concerned about the accuracy of media reports about the affair.

"In particular, I'm concerned that reports are referring to it as an accident, when it has yet to be proved whether it was an accident or not,'' he added. "I prefer to call it an incident.'' The Attorney General has insisted that there was insufficient evidence to convince a magistrate or jury that a criminal offence had been committed.