murdering 57-year-old Vincello (Johnny Peppers) Richardson.

His lawyer Mr. Timothy Marshall attacked Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade's handling of the case.

He said she had been wrong to have allowed statements by Flood to the Police to have been used as evidence.

In the statements Flood confesses to killing Richardson in December 1993.

But he later alleged he was persuaded to make the confession in return for a manslaughter charge.

Mr. Marshall also argued Mrs. Wade: Failed to explain adequately in her pre-trial judgment why she had ruled the statements as admissible; Did not appear to have considered discrepancies in Police testimony; and Had not apparently considered evidence pointing to Flood's hostile attitude towards the Police when first questioned.

It was November last year Flood, then 28, was sentenced to life in prison for murder.

The eight-man, four-woman Supreme Court jury was unanimous in its verdict.

During the trial, the court heard Flood had had no intentions of killing Richardson, and used money he stole from him to get high on drugs.

At the Court of Appeal yesterday, Mr. Marshall focused his arguments on a voir dire examination of witnesses and evidence.

A voir dire is a hearing within a hearing at which admissibility of evidence is debated and decided on in the absence of a jury.

It was during this hearing Mrs. Wade ruled on statements to Police by Flood, the three-panel appeal court heard.

Mr. Marshall argued Mrs. Wade, by declaring the statements admissible, forced Flood to give evidence.

"The only reason why he had that burden is because the Supreme Court judge ruled all statements admissible and that sunk him.

"She took away, to all intents and purposes, the ability of the defendant to remain silent and not give evidence.'' He later said: "She erred at arriving at the wrong assessment of the facts.'' Mr. Marshall said Mrs. Wade then erred by not giving an adequate reason for her decision on the admissibility of the statements.

He claimed Mrs. Wade had merely noted the arguments he put forward during the voir dire.

She did not appear to have considered the overall picture.

"It is clear the judge did not deal with the arguments advanced by counsel -- did not grapple with them -- but really only gave her conclusion.'' Mr. Marshall said there was an "independent body'' of evidence which Mrs.

Wade had not apparently explored.

This included a Flood interview with the Police shortly after his arrest in which he appeared hostile and vehemently denied guilt.

In this interview, Flood declared he did not want to say anything without a lawyer present.

The Police, said Mr. Marshall, seemed only willing to give Flood access to a lawyer, should he say "what they wanted him to say''.

Shortly afterwards, Flood held a "man to man'' talk with Det. Sgt. Stuart Crockwell.

It was during this session, Flood dramatically changed tack and confessed to the killing, said Mr. Marshall.

"Something dramatic took place.'' The appeal hearing resumes this morning. The Crown is represented by Attorney General Mr. Elliott Mottley, who was recently sworn in.