A man convicted of breaking into a mosque twice has been given 21 days grace to appeal after a Supreme Court judge called the record of his conviction ?atrocious?.

Maurice Burrows, 39, was charged with breaking into the Masjid Muhammed Muslim Community Centre on two separate occasions between January 23 and 24, and again between February 1 and 2.

Burrows, who previously lived with a friend in Sandys, pleaded not guilty to the charges. At his trial, where he represented himself after being denied Legal Aid, he was convicted by Magistrate Tyrone Chin and sent to Supreme Court for sentencing.

He appeared in Supreme Court yesterday, eight months after he was first remanded for the crimes.

However, Acting Justice Archie Warner said yesterday: ?This judgment makes no sense whatsoever.?

The conviction was based solely on the fact that Burrows? fingerprints were found at the mosque, he said. But there was no evidence as to when those fingerprints were made, and Burrows said he prayed at the mosque.

It was pointed out that the rooms in which the fingerprints were found were offices, not common rooms, and had been locked.

But Mr. Warner said: ?There is no evidence whatsoever with regards to how they got there. There was absolutely no evidence before the magistrate that this man should have been convicted.

Burrows had an alibi, he said. In fact, Mr. Warner said in the judgment Mr. Chin wrote: ?The defendant gave evidence proving beyond a doubt that he was in residence (at St. Brendan?s Hospital) on the dates in question.?

The Crown did not disprove that alibi, Mr. Warner said. ?So how could the magistrate be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt? He doesn?t say why.

?There is a provision in the Summary Offences Act that a magistrate must say why (they have convicted someone of a crime).?

The law states that a person has 21 days after they have been convicted of a crime to appeal that conviction. Though Burrows said he appealed, there was no record of his appeal in Supreme or Magistrates? Court.

Mr. Warner therefore gave him 21 days leave to appeal out of time. ?I?m turning the clock back to when you were convicted,? he said to Burrows.

?That was eight months ago,? replied Burrows. ?It?s the best I can do,? said Mr. Warner.

?Not only from the record but from the way he talks it seems to me he needs mental health treatment and not long-term imprisonment,? Mr. Warner said to the court.

However, noting that Burrows had been going back and forth from St. Brendan?s for almost 20 years, he added: ?He is probably one of those people St. Brendan?s doesn?t want to deal with either.?

Mr. Warner was also bothered by the fact that Burrows was unrepresented, questioning how Burrows could be expected to represent himself if he had mental health problems.

?I really have a programme, I really don?t represent a problem to the community,? said Burrows, as Mr. Warner considered bailing him for the 21 days. ?I?m not guilty, I didn?t commit this crime.?

?In all likelihood if there is an appeal, the conviction will be quashed,? said Mr. Warner. ?From a perusal of the record, the record is so atrocious. If I were the judge I would quash it and send it back for a retrial.

?If he doesn?t lodge an appeal he will come right back up here for sentencing.?

Burrows was bailed for $2,000 on his own recognisance on the condition he stays away from the mosque.