with intent to supply have had their appeal against conviction rejected.

And unless a second appeal against the pair's 12 year jail term is successful, Barbara and William Roberts could spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

The couple, from West Side Road, Sandy's, were arrested following a drugs bust at their home in September 1996 when Police found a huge stash of cocaine in the fridge, part of which had already been cut up ready for distribution.

They claimed that they had found the drugs and intended to eventually get rid of them. They were each sentenced to 12 years in jail after being found guilty by a ten to two majority verdict last November.

Barbara Roberts, 60, looking drawn and haggard having spent the last seven months in jail, sobbed and shook uncontrollably as the events leading up to her arrest were recounted by Appeals Court President Sir James Astwood.

Holding her hand, her 72-year-old husband looked on in a daze.

The couple's new attorney, Julian Hall had put forward ten grounds for appeal.

He criticised Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller, who presided over the original trial, for wrongly admitting Police evidence, accepting the Roberts' guilty pleas to the charge of possession and misdirecting the jury.

He claimed that Crown counsel Brian Calhoun made comments that were not supported by evidence and that there was an irregularity in the trial proceedings. And he also argued that Barbara Roberts was badly advised by her defence lawyer Mark Pettingill when she elected not to be cross examined.

Dismissing the appeal, Sir James said: "The prosecution evidence against these two persons was so overwhelming that counsel were clearly trying their best in a very bad situation to get the best verdict possible for their clients.

"At the time when the guilty pleas were entered the appellants had said that their defences were that they were going to dispose of the drugs.

"But unless the jury would be asked to completely ignore the evidence before them, they would be compelled to infer that these appellants intended to supply the drugs rather than to dispose of them. The proper manner for anyone to dispose of the drugs would be to leave them where they supposedly found them and report their findings to the Police. The fact remains that the drugs were found in their home under refrigeration.

"When all of the evidence presented to the jury in this case is considered, it is very compelling and the jury having convicted we have no reason to disagree with them.

"We would say that there has been no miscarriage of justice and we dismiss these appeals.'' A second appeal against the sentence is expected to be heard later today. Mr.

Hall refused to discuss the nature of his argument against the sentence but it is expected that he will be appealing on humanitarian grounds.