misrepresented in The Royal Gazette by lawyer Mr. Julian Hall MP.

In an unusual move, Mr. Maddocks takes Mr. Hall to task in a letter in the paper today. (Page 4) But yesterday Mr. Hall hit back when informed of the letter, saying Mr.

Maddocks was completely mistaken.

"He has drawn an entirely erroneous conclusion from an article in The Gazette ,'' he said.

The clash revolves on the controversial road collision involving a Police car which left a man seriously injured.

The incident at Crawl Hill, Hamilton Parish, in February, left pedestrian Mr.

Keith Williams badly hurt.

It was disclosed last week Mr. Maddocks decided not to prosecute the driver, Det. Con. Alick Severin.

The decision was later questioned by Mr. Hall, Mr. Williams' lawyer, in a story in yesterday's Royal Gazette .

He was said to be critical of Mr. Maddocks' refusal to let a court decide if there was a prima facie case for Det. Con. Severin to answer.

But today Mr. Maddocks accuses Mr. Hall of making a public mis-statement.

The letter states: "For Mr. Hall to say, and I have to assume that your reporting is correct, that the Attorney General should not determine whether a prima facie case exists before presenting someone before the courts for prosecution, is to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the functions of an Attorney General or a Director of Public Prosecutions.'' Mr. Maddocks adds his role also involves deciding if there is a "realistic prospect'' he can satisfy a court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person committed an offence.

"To do this he must, among many other things, decide on the apparent credibility of witnesses.

"If he does not believe he can so satisfy the court he must not, and I repeat HE MUST NOT, prosecute someone merely to air the facts or `let the court decide'.'' Mr. Hall yesterday said: "I deeply regret that the Attorney General should write to the Gazette instead of writing to me.'' He went on to strongly deny claiming Mr. Maddocks should not determine whether a prima facie case existed.

"I did not make any such statement, and I have not seen any report in The Gazette to that effect. It would be totally wrong and incorrect for me to make any such statement.

"Mr. Maddocks is therefore drawing an entirely erroneous conclusion from the limited reporting of the incident.'' He added: "I really don't wish to get into an unseemly quarrel with the Attorney General.'' Mr. Hall said all he had done to date was to question Mr. Maddocks' decision -- based on statements by Police and members of the public -- not to press for prosecution.

"The mere hitting of a pedestrian has invariably in the past been regarded as a prima facie case for some traffic offence.'' He went on: "If the Attorney General decides to assess for himself the credibility of witnesses that is his prerogative.

"But if he does so without approaching every witness on an equal footing he does so at his own peril in the court of public opinion.'' Mr. Hall said yesterday he received Police files on the incident, and would be studying them.