The Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial of a local man accused of importing cocaine on a flight from London in January.

Jaha Akili Mallory nodded to the Court on Friday as he was taken away by prison officers to await a new trial.

The judges found the trial judge, Acting Justice Charles-Etta Simmons, erred in saying that Mallory had no defence when he said he knew he was carrying $13,000 worth of cannabis and did not know he had $150,000 worth of cocaine.

In the trial in July, Mrs. Justice Simmons directed the jury to convict Mallory after lengthy legal submissions from Crown counsel Patrick Doherty and lawyer Mark Pettingill.

Mrs. Justice Simmons took the submissions at the close of the defence's case on what Mr. Doherty and Mr. Pettingill thought "what law of Bermuda was to be applied to the facts of the case as they understood this to be''.

President of the Court of Appeal, Sir James Astwood called this a "most unusual course''.

And he added the judge and lawyers "seemed to have lost sight of the fact'' it was for the jury to decide truth of what Mallory claimed was a set up.

Mrs. Justice Simmons ruled that, under section 29 of the Criminal Code, Mallory had no defence -- and was therefore guilty -- if he had embarked on a criminal enterprise of drug importation even if he was found with a drug he knew nothing about.

With that ruling, Mallory changed his plea to guilty.

President of the Court, Sir James Astwood wrote: "The judge should not have indicated to counsel that it was her view that the appellant had no defence to the charges, and that she was going to direct the jury accordingly.

"This led to the unfortunate position that he changed his plea,'' he added.

"We have concluded that the judge misdirected herself in concluding that the appellant had no defence to the charges...

"His defence was a lack of knowledge in that he neither knew nor suspected nor had reason to suspect the presence of cocaine in the suitcases and that he did not intend to import it or possess it.'' Sir James explained: "This defence was available to him under section 29 of the Act. This was a straightforward jury question, and should have been left to the jury to decide one way or the other.

"If the jury accepted his explanation they would have had to acquit him. In our view a miscarriage of Justice has occurred in this case.'' The Court set aside the jury's verdict of guilty (under direction of the judge) and ordered a retrial.

Mallory had maintained that as a Rastafarian he used cannabis as a sacrament but abhorred cocaine.

He said he was asked to smuggle cannabis into Bermuda by a Jamaican dealer who gave him two suitcases.