Five narcotics officers accused of beating a convicted drugs importer were acquitted yesterday after Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner ruled the evidence was ?weak, self contradictory and out of reason and common sense?.

Former Dunkley?s Dairy employee Michael Madeiros, who is serving a ten-year sentence for conspiracy to import over $2 million worth of cannabis, had alleged the five beat him after arresting him on October 24, 2003.

He claimed to have been kicked, punched, hit with a telephone book, held by his neck and dropped and had pliers put to his knuckles in a bid to force him to talk.

But Mr. Warner said the claims were incredible and Madeiros had made repeated admissions that his own testimony sounded crazy and his memory of events was faulty.

The five cleared men ? Jamiko Tucker, 27, Kirly Mitchell, 31, Andrew Woolridge, 32, Antoine Fox, 37, and David Bhagwan, 30 ? were hugged by family and colleagues after the verdict but declined to comment to the media.

Earlier in the trial, co-accused Det. Con. Allan Miguel had been cleared after Mr. Warner ruled he had no case to answer.

Summing up the case yesterday, Mr. Warner said there was evidence Madeiros had no injuries before his arrest and the injuries he had when leaving custody could be classified as actual bodily harm.

But he said Madeiros was the only one to say the five had caused those injuries and he had changed his mind over which officers did what ? first saying Antoine Fox had hit him with a telephone book before pointing the finger at David Bhagwan.

Madeiros had made the same switch on the claim that someone had choked him.

?These are serious inconsistencies,? said Mr. Warner. ?He was making these stories up as he went along. These inconsistencies may be based on the fact he admitted he simply doesn?t remember materially what happened.?

Overseas forensic expert Valerie Rao had said Madeiros? injuries were consistent with being ?struck by a blunt object,? but that did not tie the defendants to the assault.

Mr. Warner noted Madeiros had chosen to tell the doctor who examined him that his injuries had been caused by a fall and a later claim he did so because he felt intimidated did not ring true. ?There was little opportunity to intimidate him,? he said.

Mr. Warner?s decision to acquit all the accused followed submissions from lawyers including a brief address by Crown counsel Carrington Mahoney, who said evidence the injuries had occurred during the time Madeiros was in custody, had gone unchallenged.

He said: ?My submission is simple. This issue is simply one of credibility.?

Lawyer Allan Doughty, who represented Det. Cons. Jamiko Tucker, Allan Miguel and Andrew Woolridge, said Madeiros had said Det. Con. Azab Ahab had hit him on several occasions following the arrest. Det. Con. Ahab has since left the Island.

He said Madeiros had claimed he was beaten by Det. Cons. Ahab, David Bhagwan and Kirly Mitchell but Mr. Doughty suggested the injuries were caused in a scuffle when Madeiros tried to escape officers who were searching his house in Belmer Drive, Devonshire.

And he said Madeiros had given the game away by testifying how easy it had been to rip open Det. Con. Mitchell?s shirt.

Madeiros had complained of injuries to his eye, face, neck, back and buttocks after the alleged beating, but in her evidence Dr. Rao had said she would have expected more extensive bruising on Madeiros? body if he had been repeatedly kicked while lying on the ground.

And Mr. Doughty questioned why the injuries were only on one side of the body which would be unlikely in a general beating.

Larry Scott, who represented Det. Cons. David Bhagwan, Antoine Fox and Kirly Mitchell, said Madeiros had a clear motive to make up a story as he was facing a drugs conviction.

?He had embarrassed his wife, family and employers,? he said.

?He was trying to extricate himself. He was an unadulterated liar.?

After Mr. Warner had delivered his verdict both defence lawyers took the unusual step of applying for costs against the prosecution with Mr. Doughty referring to a 1930 act allowing such a claim on the grounds a case was unfounded, frivolous or done under improper motive.

However, Mr. Mahoney said the case was far from frivolous as evidence that Madeiros had suffered his injuries while in custody had gone unchallenged.

If costs were awarded against the Crown, he said that before future prosecutions were launched, the Crown would have to try each witness before risking them in a trial.

Pressing his case for costs, Mr. Doughty said all six men had been transferred out of the Narcotics division. ?There positions have since been filled, they cannot return.?

Mr. Warner said he wondered how the Crown could have called Madeiros a liar when convicting him of importing drugs in Supreme Court but then mount a prosecution on his behalf in Magistrates? Court where is credibility would be tested.

Mr. Warner, who will hear more arguments on the subject today, said: ?I don?t take the view that my decision will set a precedent. This court cannot set precedents.?

Last night the Police Service declined to comment on the acquittal or on what would happen to the six officers who have been working on non-operational duties since being charged.

However, Police Association spokesman Kevin Christopher, who was one of several officers watching yesterday?s proceedings, said: ?Of course, I am happy the officers have been acquitted.?

Asked if the case should have come to court, he said: ?I have not seen all the evidence on which the Crown decided to pursue this matter but from what I am aware of, I do have some concerns.?