The trial of six narcotics officers accused of assault has been temporarily halted by the Chief Justice after a day of intense legal wrangling which saw the competence and impartiality of Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner questioned.

Jamiko Tucker, 27, Allan Miguel, 40, Kirley Mitchell, 31, Andrew Woolridge, 32, Antoine Fox, 37, and David Bhagwan, 30, are charged with assaulting ? in October, 2003 ? former Dunkley?s Dairy employee Michael Madeiros, who is currently serving a ten-year sentence for conspiracy to import over $2 million worth of cannabis.

At the centre of yesterday?s drama was a bitter stand-off between Mr. Warner and the Department of Public Prosecutions over Mr. Warner?s refusal last week Friday to agree to a short adjournment of the case ? a decision labelled by the Crown as ?totally unreasonable?.

Crown counsel Carrington Mahoney made the request on the basis that one of the prosecution?s key witnesses ? overseas forensic pathologist Valerie Rao ? would not be in Bermuda until Thursday.

And despite defence claims to the contrary, Mr. Mahoney also based his application on the fact that he was scheduled to be lead counsel in a Supreme Court murder trial due to begin yesterday which, he maintained, took precedence over proceedings in the lower court.

However, Mr. Warner refused the request ? pointing out that at a specially arranged hearing on June 3, he had made it perfectly clear he intended to finish the trial without interruption, and that the Crown had given no indication then that there would be a problem with witnesses or scheduling.

At various times throughout the trial last week, Mr. Warner was also highly critical of the prosecution?s conduct of the case, stating at one point it did not appear that one arm of the DPP knew what the other was doing.

With the Crown therefore out of witnesses, he ordered that the defence should open its case yesterday morning and that Dr. Rao could be called to give evidence if and when she arrived on the Island.

The tense and exhausting day began at 9.30 a.m when the Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette Graham-Allen appeared in court alone to inform Mr. Warner the Crown was not in a position to proceed ? a stance the judge labelled ?contemptuous?.

Mr. Warner then adjourned the trial until 2.30 p.m to give the Crown ?one last chance? to ensure there was somebody in court to prosecute the case.

But in a move which caught everybody off guard, Ms Graham-Allen returned in the afternoon to reveal she had secured an order from Chief Justice Richard Ground to stop the judge proceeding with the case before a hearing before him in the Supreme Court in the afternoon.

A clearly dispirited Mr. Warner acknowledged the order?s existence before concluding with the remarks: ?This is a sad day for the administration of justice in Bermuda?.

The late afternoon hearing saw the arrival of a veritable ?Who?s Who? of Bermuda?s legal heavyweights in the Supreme Court, including Attorney General Larry Mussenden and Solicitor General Wilhelm Bourne.

Former DPP Kulandra Ratneser was brought out to make the case for the Crown in the presence of the DPP herself, while Mr. Warner had also sought legal representation in the form of Juris Law Chambers? Craig Attridge.

In a multi-faceted submission, Mr. Ratneser accused the Chief Magistrate of prejudging the relevance of Dr. Rao?s evidence and of ordering a ?meaningless? adjournment last week until Monday morning ? when he knew full well Mr. Mahoney would be in the Supreme Court.

He also said Mr. Warner had threatened to dismiss the case or to acquit the defendants if the Crown was not prepared to continue ? an allegation Mr. Warner flatly denied.

?The Crown is not being allowed to present its case in all fairness to the community,? Mr. Ratneser said.

?You?ve got to bear in mind that we in Bermuda do not have a forensic pathologist and we rely on overseas witnesses. The fact that they cannot be here at the precise time they are required has got to be excepted by everyone. If not the justice system would collapse. The other valid basis for an adjournment is the unavailability of Mr. Mahoney and the precedence of Supreme Court matters. It would be a perversity of justice to require a lead Crown counsel in a major Supreme Court case to attend to a matter in an inferior court. The Supreme Court must take precedence. It is on these bases that the Crown submits that the conduct of this Magistrate has been totally unreasonable.?

As expected the defence had a rather different take on the matter, arguing that the impasse was simply an example of ?poor case management? on behalf of the Crown, who were now trying to haul themselves out of a hole which they themselves dug.

Indeed, Larry Scott came to the defence of Mr. Warner, arguing that the Chief Magistrates? intentions had been made ?abundantly clear? from the beginning and that the Crown had known ?better than anybody else? that difficulties were going to arise.

Mr. Warner had also not given any indication as to how he would rule, Mr. Scott continued, in the event that the Crown could not proceed any further.

And why a junior Crown counsel could not have been assigned to the case in Mr. Mahoney?s place was also a question raised by the defence.

But after a 15-minute recess, Mr. Justice Ground ruled that the Supreme Court trial did indeed take precedence, while ordering Mr. Warner to adjourn the matter until a new date could be scheduled. He was at pains to point out, however, that he had not ruled on the appropriateness of Mr. Warner?s actions and that he did not accept the refusal of an adjournment on the basis of Dr. Rao?s unavailability to have been unreasonable.