Police statements from a cocaine user should be ignored because addicts are unreliable when they are intoxicated, a lawyer has urged a court.

But a prosecutor has urged Magistrate Edward King to consider the statements because no one knows when Andre Kirk Hypolite took the cocaine, traces of which were found in his urine four days after his arrest.

Mr. King will deliver a judgment on May 26 after hearing a day and a half of testimony this week on eight counts of breaking and entering and stealing from two years ago that Hypolite denies.

Yesterday's session saw little of the fireworks between Hypolite's lawyer Michael Scott and Mr. King which peppered Wednesday's hearing.

Hypolite has pleaded not guilty to breaking into Shobana Sen's apartment on Happy Valley Road and taking a purse containing a small amount of cash, a camera, an electronic organiser, a refrigerator magnet and a now overdue library book.

He denies breaking into general practitioner Niall Aitken's office, Winifred Brooks' Pembroke home and the Little Theatre.

Hypolite also denies stealing $80 from the Happy Valley Day Care Centre, stealing a video machine from Amoi Kennedy's home, stealing $239 from the Ice Queen in Hamilton and stealing $3,585 from the Sea Horses betting shop. During yesterday's hearing, analyst Elaine Watkinson produced a Prison Service drug test report which showed Hypolite had enough cocaine in his urine on May 5, 1998, to be above a "cut off level'' which would be actionable by the prison.

This was four days after Hypolite first went into Police custody.

Ms Watkinson insisted the test was only for "monitoring'' while a person was in custody and would not have been used for a court case which would require a "confirmatory'' test.

Psychiatrist Donald McKenzie testified on the effects of long-term cocaine use and "high level'' use which, he said, would lead to "frank psychotic symptoms''.

Other effects of long-term heavy use included a raised anxiety level and paranoid feelings, he added.

Hypolite's brother Troy Edwards said his brother had been an addict for three or four years and he allowed his brother to sleep in his apartment shortly before he was arrested.

He said: "He was dirty and his eyes were bloodshot and wide open which are classic symptoms of cocaine use. He hadn't had any rest for three or four days. He slept all night.'' Crown Counsel Patrick Doherty said: "The main issue in this case appears to be the voluntariness of statements the defendant gave to Police. "It is the Crown's burden to prove they were obtained without prejudice, hope of advantage, or oppression. The standard of proof is that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"There is no evidence the accused was under the influence when he gave the statements. He was so aware of what he was doing he took Police to where he had the goods hidden.'' Mr. Scott focussed on the admissibility of statements from a person who was intoxicated by drugs and cited case law on the reliability of confessions.

"My application to exclude the statements of the accused is on the basis of fundamental principles of justice and common law,'' Mr. Scott said.

"We have a case of a man in acute withdrawal symptoms between his being taken into custody on June 1 and June 5.

"The court may draw an inference that as he had cocaine metabolites in his urine on June 5. .then he had cocaine in his system at the material time of the statements,'' he added.

"It would be wholly unsavoury for Your Worship to convict this accused on the basis of these statements,'' he continued. "The Crown has failed to discharge this evidential burden.''