In a rare and controversial legal move, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was requested to hand over his notes on a recent drug trial yesterday by a three-man Appeal Court panel who suggested his recording of the hearing was questionable and possibly prejudicial.

"I have never seen anything like this before,'' Appeal Court President Sir James Astwood said of the transcript for the trial of Sharon Tyrell, a 50-year-old St. George's woman who was convicted in May of importing more than $102,000 in cannabis.

On October 23, 1993, Tyrell and her 51-year-old co-defendant in the case, Jacqueline Marie Brangman, were detained by Police at the Airport after a duffel bag that was on their American Airlines flight from New York and bore Tyrell's name was found to contain a large quantity of marijuana.

During the subsequent jury trial, Brangman, who was also from St. George's, was ultimately acquitted of the importation charges, but Tyrell was found to be guilty.

Yesterday, her lawyer, Mr. Frank Phipps QC of Jamaica, objected to Tyrell's conviction on the grounds that a procedural error on Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ward's part had deprived the appellant of a fair and proper hearing.

"There was,'' he told the Appeal Court panel, "a procedural irregularity which goes to the root of criminal justice in this case in that there was no proper recording of testimony as required by law. What was provided instead of a proper recording were some unsworn Police statements.'' According to Mr. Phipps, the Chief Justice had referred by page and paragraph in his trial notes to the witnesses' statements to Police -- at least two of which turned out to be inaccurate -- instead of recording their testimony as it was delivered by the witnesses in court.

By doing so, the lawyer contended, the Chief Justice had caused the inaccuracies in the statements to Police to be transcribed in the official transcript.

But more importantly, he stated further, the Chief Justice had failed with his method of note-taking to record the testimony viva voce -- or firsthand.

"The appellant,'' Mr. Phipps surmised for the panel, "is required to have her case reviewed as it actually took place at the trial. "There is nothing in this case,'' he ultimately concluded, "which may be regarded as the judge's notes.'' Representing the Crown, responding lawyer Mr. Khamisi Tokunbo disagreed with Mr. Phipps' analysis, saying that the transcript in the case did constitute a proper firsthand recording of the trial.

"The method (of note-taking) that the Chief Justice used,'' he said, "was perhaps unsatisfactory, but that doesn't make it an irregularity. It did not, as my learned colleague suggested, prejudice the appellant's trial. In particular, it did not prejudice the jury's verdict.'' As one of the two prosecutors at Tyrell and Brangman's trial, Mr. Tokunbo also suggested that the Court of Appeal might not have the authority to demand the Chief Justice's notes.

"If you feel it might be necessary, I would suggest that you do look at the notes,'' he said at one point in the proceedings. "But I'm not sure if this Court has the authority.'' The three Appeal Court judges, however, were demonstrably unconvinced by the responding lawyer's arguments, especially his questioning of their legal jurisdiction.

"We will ask the Registrar,'' Sir James told Mr. Tokunbo, "to see the (Justice's) notebook. Ask her to hand it over. If she has a problem, I'll see to it.'' As a matter of professional "courtesy'', the President stated further, the Court of Appeal would apprise the Chief Justice of its decision before it took hold of the notes.

He added that the panel would take a day or two to review the notes and announce a decision thereafter.

Tyrell, who was escorted to court yesterday by a pair of female Police officers, was remanded into custody until then.