Court of Appeal attacked conflicting advice given to the jury by Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller.

Delicia Tucker, 28, had confessed to importing and possession of $22,000 of cocaine but was acquitted of smuggling $124,000 of heroin and $3,500 of cannabis in the same tube.

But Crown Counsel Sandra Bacchus said there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice because Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller had directed the jury at one stage that if Tucker did not know about the other drugs she could be acquitted of charges relating to them.

Ms. Bacchus said if convicted of heroin charges Tucker, from Rambling Lane, Pembroke, could have ended up with a nine to 12-year sentence rather than the six-year term she landed in October last year.

Ms. Bacchus said: "If it's proved she believed it was a controlled drug then that's no case. She quite clearly believed the substance was a controlled drug.

Justice Sir James Astwood said of Ms. Wade-Miller's handling: "This is wrong.

It's full of flaws.'' Ms. Bacchus added: "It was at most clearly incorrect on key aspects and at best unclear.'' She said the confused jury had requested copies of the Misuse of Drugs Act to help clarify the matter.

She said: "In this case the jury required a very clear direction on the law given the narrow issues. I don't know if the court was clear about her own position.

"But it's a matter of law - a controlled drug is a controlled drug -- she (Tucker) said she didn't know it was heroin. You can't run that as a defence.'' Ms. Bacchus also attacked the trial judge for implying that it had to be proved that mother-of-one Tucker had knowledge that the drugs were intended for supply.

Ms Bacchus said: "I have a problem with the word knowledge.'' Justice Astwood said: "You can infer that from the quantity.'' He said the original Judge Norma Wade-Miller had blundered by saying the defendant could be acquitted if she hadn't known it was `the' controlled drug when she should have used the word `a' controlled drug.

He said: "That may be where she got it wrong.'' He also said Ms. Wade-Miller may have got confused by using authorities not recognised under Bermuda law but current in the UK and elsewhere.

He added that Bermudian law was quite strict. He said: "When you are found with a container of drugs you are in trouble. Particularly when they are sealed in a tube inside your body.'' But he added that some of Ms. Wade-Millers' summing up had contradicted her earlier direction. And he wondered if there was enough grounds to order a retrial.

He said: "You have a direction which is in some parts good and some parts bad.

"A retrial on that basis seems difficult. We don't know why the jury acquitted.'' A decision is likely over the next few weeks.