Mundy as an accessory after the fact to Rebecca Middleton's murder "highly irresponsible'' and "highly irregular''.

And he blamed former Attorney General Elliott Mottley in the decision making in the prosecution leading up to Justis Smith's trial, calling the deal offered to Mundy "something I have never been able to understand''.

Mr. Pearce also said he "could not understand'' why Mr. Mottley did not take the case to trial against Mr. Smith in November, 1998 despite instructing a Police officer to find out the availability of expert witnesses.

Det. Con. Terry Maxwell advised Mr. Mottley, Mr. Pearce said, that the experts would only be available at the end of that month, so Mr. Mottley would have had ample time to get a contract extension.

Furthermore, as Mr. Mottley had already been granted at least two extensions to his contract that year, he could "get another at any time'' to conduct a murder trial, Mr. Pearce claimed.

Mr. Mottley's contract extension came to an end in the middle of Mr. Smith's premeditated murder trial and he left the Island before Mr. Smith was discharged with no case to answer.

Mr. Pearce was giving evidence before the Serious Crimes Commission yesterday morning. Both Director of Public Prosecutions Khamisi Tokunbo and Smith's leading local lawyer Archibald Warner were present.

They watched as Mr. Pearce said that in the days following the murder, there was enough evidence to charge both Smith and Mundy with murder.

"I was not in Bermuda at the time (of the July 4, 1996 murder),'' he said.

"But this was highly irresponsible. I wasn't there, but any prosecutor has to look at all the evidence. What was this rush to judgment? "It was highly irregular to my mind to make this decision with the charging evidence that was available,'' Mr. Pearce continued. "On the available evidence there was enough combination evidence to charge Mundy and Smith.'' Mr. Pearce added: "As a trial lawyer I would have said let's wait until all the evidence is made. Why not wait? That's something I have never been able to understand.'' Mr. Pearce told the Commission he came to this conclusion after reviewing the whole Middleton murder file.

"My review of the facts of the case indicated to me that certain decisions were made in July of 1996 vis-a-vis Kirk Mundy. I disagree with Mr. Mottley when he says there was no evidence for Mundy (committing murder).'' Mr. Pearce continued that prosecutors would not have had photographs, expert DNA and other forensic evidence when the deal was made.

Mundy, he said, knew DNA evidence would show he had sexual intercourse with Miss Middleton in a "particularly vicious rape and murder''.

Mundy also knew it was "preposterous and implausible'' that his story of consensual sex with her would be believed once all the evidence was in.

Pearce hits back Still with that "totally implausible'' scenario on the table, Mr. Pearce said the file showed lawyer Mark Pettingill successfully "dangled'' the offer of a guilty plea of accessory after the fact to prosecutors.

They bought Mr. Pettingill's ploy "hook, line, and sinker'', Mr. Pearce claimed.

He further explained that consideration should have been given to the fact that Mundy was on bail for a serious robbery, had given two previous conflicting statements and had an "obvious motive'' to beat the Middleton murder charge.

Mr. Pearce insisted on calling the "implicit'' deal a plea bargain whether it had official sanction or general approval or not.

He also questioned why the deal was not made in writing -- thereby binding Mundy to take the stand against Smith or face the murder charge himself.

"I've never heard of a case where that did not happen,'' he said. "Normally a witness gives testimony and if it comes up to proof then it goes up to the Court of Appeal and then the sentence is reduced.'' He called it a "binding agreement that also carried the implicit understanding'' that Mundy would have to give evidence against Smith.

But he did not call Mundy during Smith's trial because a murder charge had been laid against him, making Mundy a "hostile witness'' who would have damaged the case against Smith.

An example of this was the fact the jury laughed when Smith's lawyer John Perry QC questioned a leading detective why Mundy was charged with accessory after the fact despite claiming to have had consensual sex.

"How could the Crown call a witness whom it had discredited? You're calling someone you hope to give evidence, but you made him a hostile witness which you did by charging him again with murder.'' Of the original decision, Mr. Pearce concluded: "I think Mr. Mottley indicated that he didn't believe there was enough evidence to prosecute the two at the time (July, 1996). I believe he was mistaken if he was of that view.'' When asked about Mr. Warner's suggestion that Police officers use "armchair'' tactics when investigating crimes by using too much statement evidence, Mr.

Pearce agreed.

Police had "almost brought their case to an end'' with Mundy's guilty plea which was an "easy way out'' for them.

"I don't know if that's symptomatic and I don't know if it is a problem,'' he added. "The charge approval system should be tightened up.'' Monday: Mr. Pearce defends his role in the prosecution of Justis Smith