The Rebecca Middleton murder trial judge has criticised the Commission set up to investigate serious crime for being misleading.

In an unusual move for a judge, Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux has gone public and responded to criticisms of his ruling clearing Justis Smith of Rebecca Middleton's murder.

Mr. Meerabux characterised as "misleading'' the Serious Crime Commission's view of the Privy Council's conclusions on the case.

The move comes nearly two years after he ruled Mr. Smith had "no case to answer'' after hearing the prosecution's case in a trial and directed the jury to render not guilty verdicts.

In a brief obtained by The Royal Gazette Mr. Meerabux said the Commission "has failed to appreciate'' the function of the Privy Council, Bermuda's highest court of appeal.

And he pointed out the Commission's comments on the appropriateness of his decision was not the issue at hand before the Privy Council and "plucking out of context'' the Council's quotes "gives a meaningfully different colour to the phrases''.

In the brief, Mr. Meerabux affirmed that as a trial judge he should not be entering into debate about his decision.

"As a judge of the Supreme court appointed under the Constitution, I do not think that it is proper of me to enter into a public debate on the report,'' he wrote.

"When any matter comes before me I try the case without fear or favour and make my decisions according to the law,'' he concluded.

Referring to section 3.1.2 paragraphs 14 to 16, Mr. Justice Meerabux wrote: "I think that the Commission's views as to the conclusion, the finding, and the thinking of `their Lordships' in the Smith case in relation to the matters specified therein are misleading.'' Quoting from recent case law defining the role of the Privy Council, Mr.

Meerabux showed that the court is not a "second court of appeal'' but is designed to "lay down general principles and to correct substantial miscarriage of justice''.

He said the principal issue before the court was whether, under the Court of Appeal Act of 1964, the Attorney General had a right to appeal a judge's decision to direct a jury to acquit someone on the grounds he had no case to answer.

"It turns on the question whether within the meaning of section 17 (2) there was a ground of appeal which involved `a question of law alone','' Mr.

Meerabux explained.

"The issue was fully argued before and determined by the Privy Council and (is) not what is stated in paragraphs 14, 15, and 16 (of section 3.1.2.),'' he added.

David and Cindy Middleton speak out -- Page 3 Commission's findings -- Page 4 Trial judge condemns inquiry "The issues specified in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 were not argued before the Privy Council and were not issues before the Privy Council to determine.'' In that section of the report the Commissioners repeat the Council's assertion that his decision was a "surprising'' and an "astonishing'' one.

Mr. Meerabux also explained the complex issue before the Council was whether the Attorney General could appeal "from the judge's decision that the conduct of the prosecution constituted an abuse of process with the remedy of an implied stay''.

Other issues include whether the Bermuda Court of Appeal's decision to reverse Mr. Justice Meerabux's ruling was an abuse of process and whether it was fair to order a retrial for Mr. Smith without hearing his lawyer.