A woman who, with her husband, pleaded guilty to possession of $1.5 million of cocaine claimed she wasn't told of the consequences of that action.

In her affidavit given to the Court of Appeal, Barbara Roberts said there was no discussion with their lawyers about what the outcome of pleading guilty would be.

Julian Hall, appearing for Barbara Roberts and William Roberts, said she also recieved no adequate advice with respect of the consequences of not giving evidence on her own behalf -- which she did not do on her lawyer's advice.

The couple, from West Side Road, Sandys, were appealing against their conviction and sentence before Court of Appeal President Sir James Astwood, Judge Sir Alan Huggins and Judge Edward Zacca.

They were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment last November after being found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to supply.

Mr. Hall said Barbara Roberts, 60, was expecting to give evidence, but by the time she was due to step into the witness box her mental health had deteriorated and her lawyer, Mark Pettingill, told her he wasn't going to put her in the box.

"The decision that she wasn't going to give evidence was not made by her at all,'' said Mr. Hall. "The consequences of her not giving evidence was not spelt out for her and she was denied a fair trial.'' Her son, Kevin Roberts backed up her claim in an affidavit and said that Mr.

Pettingill told her "he was confident they had covered bases with her''.

Julian Hall said if she had given evidence she might have said other things about the incident.

But in his own affidavit, Mr. Pettingill said Mrs. Roberts' health got worse as the trial progressed and he took the view that it was in her best interests not to give evidence.

He added the possibility of not giving evidence, and the consequences of that course of action, was explained to her.

Her husband, William Roberts, 72, would take the stand and he would "cover all bases with him''.

"I, at no time, prevented Barbara Roberts from giving evidence at her trial nor was I insistent that she did not give evidence,'' said Mr. Pettingill.

Senior Crown Counsel Brian Calhoun argued that had Barbara Roberts stood as a witness, that would have given the prosecution the chance of cross-examining her.

As it was he said, he couldn't question her statement which was given. And he added that, as Mr. Pettingill had said, the decision not to testify was hers.

"She made it clear she wanted advice and that she indicated that she wanted such advice from Mark Pettingill and Richard Hector (William Roberts' lawyer at the trial). The decision not to testify was hers,'' said Mr. Calhoun.

"As to whether a defence was put in this case, it was put on a full footing, backed up by William Roberts, but was simply not accepted by the jury.'' The Court of Appeal reinstated the ground of appeal that Mrs. Roberts was so heavily sedated due to stress that she was "unable to comprehend legal advice given to her''.

It was also claimed that Mrs Roberts "was given no, or no adequate, legal advice as to the consequences...having regard particularly to the defence which she was proposing to raise -- that she did not even know what the substance was and that she had disposed of a lot of it and that she was intending to dispose of the remainder.'' A decision on the appeals of both William Roberts and Barbara Roberts is expected soon.