Prosecutors overlooked evidence from four forensic experts and turned to a fifth pathologist before charging a man with Rebecca Middleton's murder, a court heard yesterday.

And Saul Froomkin, representing accused killer Kirk Mundy, slammed the investigation into his client as "scandalous''.

Jamaican-born Mundy, 23, was charged with Rebecca's murder in January -- 18 months after the 17-year-old Canadian was found stabbed to death on Ferry Reach, St. George's.

Mundy is already serving five years in jail after admitting being an accessory after the fact.

Eighteen-year-old Bermudian Justis Raham Smith was charged with murder at the time of the killing and now faces a joint murder charge with Mundy.

The pair are due to appear for trial at the end of May.

Mr. Froomkin failed in a bid to prove an "abuse of process'' against Attorney General Elliott Mottley last month, arguing Police had done a deal with Mundy for evidence against Smith.

But he launched a fresh bid to have his client's murder charge dropped in Supreme Court yesterday -- and claimed there was no "credible'' new evidence against Mundy.

Mr. Froomkin, himself a former Attorney General, told Chief Justice Austin Ward that prosecutors received their fifth pathologist report on December 10 last year.

Mr. Justice Ward directed journalists not to report evidence which could prejudice future proceedings.

But Mr. Froomkin said the Crown relied on the "opinion'' of the final pathologist, Dr. Michael Bodden, to bring the case against Mundy.

And he said: "His so-called opinion is scandalous.

"The Crown wasn't satisfied with the four forensic pathologists' statements they already had, so on December 10, now, we get a statement from Dr. Bodden.

"It's scandalous, the way this case has been handled -- and I say that advisedly.

"There's not a prima facie case. His opinion is worthless.

"It can't be credible evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find that Mr. Mundy was a guilty party.'' The lawyer referred to the number of pathologists called by the Attorney General, adding: "They finally got one they liked so they stopped.

"That's not the basis upon which a jury properly charged could make a finding.

"There is no credible evidence upon which Mr. Mundy could have or should have been indicted.'' He urged Mr. Justice Ward to throw out the indictment, contained in a voluntary bill.

The bill means the case can bypass magistrates and go straight to trial.

But Mr. Froomkin said he would cross-examine Mr. Bodden and other witnesses if the bill was thrown out but the prosecution still brought the case before magistrates for normal committal proceedings.

He also argued the voluntary bill should not have been approved because legal preconditions had not been met.

And Mr. Froomkin said the Crown would not be able to prove Mundy and Smith carried out the murder together.

"There's no evidence of any joint enterprise,'' he said. "I realise that I'm asking My Lord to take an unusual step but this is an unusual case.

"It's not as if the Crown is without remedy. The Crown could proceed with the preliminary inquiry and then we could cross-examine the only relevant witness, Dr. Bodden.'' Solicitor General William Pearce claimed it was inappropriate for Mr. Justice Ward to consider the application because he was the judge who accepted the voluntary bill.

But the Chief Justice said Bermuda only had four judges and added: "This is not an appeal against my decision. This is an application to quash the indictment.'' The hearing has been adjourned until next week.