cases even when a suspect has not been cautioned, a Supreme Court judge ruled this week.

Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade made the ruling after a confession that Winston Wellington Burgess made to a Police officer was admitted as evidence when Burgess was tried for the murder of Wilfred (Oopie) Ming.

Burgess was convicted in April of unlawfully killing Ming and intentionally causing him grievous bodily harm on September 10, 1994.

During the trial, lawyer Mr. Delroy Duncan, representing Burgess, argued that statements his client made at St. George's Police Station in which he admitted attacking Ming should not be admitted as evidence because he made them before he was cautioned by Police.

Following legal arguments from Mr. Duncan and Attorney General Mr. Elliott Mottley QC, Mrs. Justice Wade admitted all but two of the statements and said she would issue a written judgment later.

In her judgment released this week, Mrs. Wade said Mr. Duncan argued that the statements should be excluded because the Police breached provisions of the Criminal Code and the Bermuda Constitution by failing to notify the accused of his rights which they should have done as soon as he was brought to the Police Station.

Mr. Duncan also argued that the Police failed to comply with Judge's rules with respect to the recording of the matters that the accused outlined in the statements.

And he said it was unfair to admit the statements in the absence of compliance with the accused's request to be given an opportunity to read the statement after it was written. On three occasions Burgess said "just write it down' and on two of those three occasions he said "just write it down and let me read it''. Burgess was never given an opportunity to read the statement, and "cumulatively it is unfair to admit the statements'', Mr. Duncan said.

Mrs. Wade said Mr. Mottley conceded there was a technical breach of the Criminal Code by the officers by not informing the accused of his right within the first two minutes.

However, he argued that the statements are not automatically rendered inadmissible because of a minor breach of the Criminal Code, or a provision of the Constitution or the Judge's Rules.

Mrs. Wade said two officers who interviewed Burgess showed during a voir dire hearing that one of them recorded "contemporaneous record'' his recollection of the defendant's remarks.

Mr. Duncan highlighted a number of inconsistencies between the relevant officer's written statement and his contemporaneous record in his notebook and argued that they made the officer's evidence unreliable.

He also argued "more fundamentally'' that the failure to caution Burgess as to his rights and the failure to let him read his statement made it neither "fair nor right'' to admit it.

Mrs. Justice Wade said: "The accused was arrested, cautioned, and taken into Police custody. Two minutes after he arrived at the station he spoke spontaneously. His comments were not initiated by the Police. I accept that there has been a technical breach and the statement is therefore liable to be excluded. However, it is not mandatory that the court excludes it.'' Mrs. Justice Wade said the breach had to result in unreliability or opporession among other things for evidence to be excluded and none of those things had happened.