An appeal in a case of computer data theft was dismissed last week in Appeals Court after the Crown ignored court orders.

Trader Stuart Lacey, 31, of Bostock Hill in Paget was charged with downloading client contact data when he was a trader at Emerald Financial Group.

The case was later thrown out in Magistrates? Court after the Crown was unable to provide key evidence. The Crown had alleged that Lacey was planning to resign from his job and take the client list to a competing firm.

Crown counsel Oonagh Vaucrosson appealed the ruling earlier this month explaining to Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley that witnesses had been travelling a lot at the time of the original trial which led to delays and, eventually, a dismissed trial.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Kawaley dismissed the Crown?s appeal stating that the defence was not supplied with copies of the prosecutions witness statements or the particulars of the offence that had been requested.

?In my view the learned Magistrate was right to find, as he clearly did, that the Crown had failed to comply with the August 28, 2003 Particulars Order, and that this failure prejudiced the ability of the Respondent to have a fair trial on October 7, 2003 when the parties appeared before him for trial,? he wrote.

He further wrote: ?It is unprofessional not to respond to correspondence from a law firm representing an accused person in proceedings before the Court.

?It is contempt of Court to ignore a Court Order, without seeking the indulgence of Counsel or an extension of time from the Court.

?The only other inference, no more flattering to the Crown, is that the prosecuting authorities charged with upholding and enforcing the law do not consider that they have any obligation to adhere to orders made in the Magistrates? Court.

?In any event, the learned Magistrate on October 7, 2003 was dealing with the second, not the first, instance of the prosecution without any explanation flouting orders of the Court.?

Mr. Justice Kawaley added that if the offence had been of a more serious nature and in the public interest to proceed with prosecution the charge might well have been dismissed because of the carelessness of the prosecutions preparation during pre-trial.

During the appeal, defence lawyer Mark Diel had questioned what case the Department of Public Prosecutions had against his client.

Mr. Justice Kawaley wrote in his judgment: ?In light of the fact that the complainants in this case appear to have clear civil remedies and to have suffered no actual (as opposed to potential) financial loss, it is far from obvious why the discretion to prosecute was exercised in this case.?

He said the appeal by the Crown was dismissed.