An attempt by the Department of Public Prosecutions to clarify an "ambiguous" not guilty verdict in an assault case was thrown out by the Court of Appeal yesterday.

The DPP was given a rap over the knuckles by one of the judges, who questioned why lawyers didn't act at the time and asked how much public money the challenge had cost.

The Crown had argued that the jury's verdict in the case against Brandon James Brocket was "incomplete" as they did not deal with all the possible verdicts open to them before they were discharged by Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves last March.

The case against Warwick resident Brocket, now 22, was that he repeatedly stabbed Jelani Butterfield in the bathroom at the Club Malabar nightclub in Dockyard on the night of December 22, 2003. According to the Crown, the complainant screamed and fell to the ground after being stabbed in the back, then saw Brocket standing over him with a knife. It was alleged that Brocket left Mr. Butterfield on the ground in a pool of blood.

The defendant was initially charged with attempted murder but a 'no case' submission was upheld by Mr. Justice Greaves, who directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty. The jury was then asked to consider two other possible verdicts ? unlawful wounding with intent and the lesser charge of wounding without intent. This resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict on the more serious charge. However, the Crown argued in the Court of Appeal that Mr. Justice Greaves erred in not asking the jury to return a verdict on the wounding without intent charge before he let them go.

In a document outlining the case for the appellant, Crown counsel Wayne Caines argued that the jury's verdict was a nullity in this case. He added that the Crown did not seek a re-trial but simply clarification and guidance on the issue of alternative verdicts.

Outlining the case yesterday, Crown counsel Carrington Mahoney said: "There was a verdict, but it was ambiguous."

Court of Appeal President Mr. Justice Edward Zacca said that while the not guilty verdict had related to the more serious charge, the judge had then asked the jury if their verdict was "on everything".

"It's not the proper way. Did the Crown counsel get up and tell them they had not reached a proper verdict?" he inquired. Mr. Mahoney said that Mr. Caines ? the Crown counsel in the trial ? had not done so, agreeing with Mr. Justice Zacca that this was his duty.

"How much has it cost to prepare all this?" asked the judge, referring to the numerous documents in the appeal case, with Mr. Justice Charles Mantell adding: "All it needed was two pieces of paper."

When Mr. Mahoney reiterated that the Crown was seeking guidance, Mr. Justice Mantell said: "The only reminder that you need is that it's Crown counsel's duty to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen."

The Appeal Judges agreed that the verdict had been heard in what Mr. Justice Austin Ward termed an "unorthodox" way. They said that the jury should have been asked specifically what the verdict was on both options open to them, and Mr. Justice Ward commented that if a judge has 20 years of experience or more, "usually by then they know how to take a verdict."

However, they dismissed the Crown's appeal and upheld the original verdict.