The trial of two men charged with stealing and assault was delayed again yesterday morning and the jury panel dismissed after the defendants claimed they had not known they were going to trial.

Kyle Tannock Williams, 21, and Bennett Alexander Phipps, 19, have already appeared before Assistant Justice Archibald Warner three times in an attempt to start their trial. They are accused of stealing Durnell Smith's clothing and jewellery on August 9 of 2001 in St. George's, and have been in custody for almost two years.

Last time they appeared before Mr. Warner they had been unable to secure legal counsel because of legal aid problems. Around eight leading defence lawyers had decided not to take any more legal aid cases until rates were raised - which they eventually were, by 100 percent, in late April.

The two next appeared before Chief Justice Austin Ward during the monthly arraignments session at the beginning of May. Mr. Ward set a trial date of August 5 for the two in order to allow them to secure legal counsel. However both Phipps and Williams asked for an earlier date, saying they wanted the trial over and done with after having been in custody for two years. Mr. Ward agreed to hold August 5 as their trial date while searching for an earlier date. Phipps and Williams would be given four days notice if an earlier date was found, he said.

A letter on file dated May 9 was sent from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Supreme Court Registry stating that May 19 had been made available for the trial, Mr. Warner said yesterday. The court registrar then sent a letter to Westgate on May 12 to inform Phipps and Williams of this.

However there the trail appears to have stopped cold. Both Phipps and Williams told the court they had believed they were up for mention, not trial yesterday, and were only informed that they were going to trial yesterday morning. They had retained legal counsel, they said, with Larry Mussenden representing Williams and Larry Scott representing Phipps. However, as Mr. Warner said, their lawyers were also unaware of the new trial date.

"This is a ridiculous situation," said Mr. Warner. "The prison's got you in custody and they're responsible for your welfare. I am satisfied this document (the letter stating the new trial date) went to the prison."

"It was probably a mix-up in the mail, your honour," said Williams.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, you are witnessing this occurrence for yourself," said Mr. Warner to the potential jurors.

When Crown counsel Graveney Bannister suggested the trial be adjourned to the next day, Mr. Warner was concerned about the availability of defence lawyers. He instead adjourned the matter until 2.30 yesterday afternoon to allow Mr. Bannister to co-ordinate with Mr. Mussenden and Mr. Scott.

Representation for both defendants appeared at 2.30 with lawyers on both side as well as the defendants eager to set a trial date for some time this week.

However Mr. Warner said: "Now that you are ready, we're not ready. I am putting this back to the trial date of August 5. There will be no more adjournments in this case."

With lawyers protesting and Mr. Bannister saying the Crown wished to amend the charges from stealing and assault to the one charge of robbery, Mr. Warner set the matter down for 2.30 p.m. today. Both defendants, obviously frustrated, were remanded into custody.