A former squatter yesterday slammed a Supreme Court door after failing to regain the property of his 27-year home.

And once outside the court building, he unleashed a torrent of abuse upon his lawyer and refused to pay his legal fees.

William Bascome was evicted from Controversy Lane, Pembroke in October, 1996 after a Supreme Court decision recognised Government as the rightful property owner.

Weeks later, Mr. Bascome watched as bulldozers flattened his makeshift house and animal pens to create a public park.

Mr. Bascome -- who was previously represented by Julian Hall -- claimed he had lived in the area since moving in with his uncle in 1962.

But yesterday's appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence that Mr.

Bascome held any title for the land.

The Court of Appeal said Bascome and lawyer Peter Farge had failed to show precisely where Bascome had lived, that he had lived there consistently, that he had been given title to the property, or that he had exercised exclusive control of the area.

And based on the documents which had been given to the court, the tribunal upheld the previous ruling.

But Mr. Bascome became increasingly agitated throughout Mr. Farge's submissions, whispering loudly to him on several occasions.

One particular bone of contention was over the existence of survey maps.

The tribunal repeatedly asked Mr. Farge to clarify which portion of a three-acre lot of land had been occupied and was now being claimed by Mr.

Bascome.

They said a map clearly showing this should have been introduced before the current stage of the appeal process.

But Mr. Bascome told Mr. Farge he had already commissioned and given a topographical survey to him and questioned Mr. Farge's level of preparation.

Mr. Bascome now lives on property adjacent to the new park, but which is not Government owned. He maintained that he had paid property taxes for 20 years on his previous home and had cultivated fruit and boundary trees.

Appeals Court president Sir James Astwood said Mr. Bascome had lived on the site of the cur rent park "as a squatter'' only.

And Appeals Court Judge Alan Huggins asked: "How could the (Supreme Court) judge be wrong if you showed no piece of evidence that any particular piece of the land was in adverse occupation? "The judge said it was insufficient to establish a claim, how could he be wrong?'' he added, before the appeal was dismissed.