A 33 year old Pembroke man is appealing a conviction of unlawful carnal knowledge of a minor on grounds that the trial judge misdirected the jury in her summation.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of a minor in Supreme Court last year.

The jury found that he was guilty of unlawful carnal knowledge of the girl between July 1 and August 19, 2000 while the girl was under 14 years but not guilty of the second count of unlawful carnal knowledge on September 12, 2000 when the girl was 14 but under 16.

Lawyer Elizabeth Christopher argued yesterday that Assistant Justice Charles-Etta Simmons misdirected the jury a number of times by telling the jury that the case boiled down to "who do you believe" - suggesting that they had to choose one or the other - without informing the jury that if they disbelieved both the victim and the accused they should return a not guilty verdict.

"That was not in the jury's mind," said Ms Christopher.

She also argued that Justice Simmons reversed the burden of proof by telling the jury to decide whether the defendant's "explanations make you sure the defendant did not commit these offences".

And she said no direction was given to the jury regarding the reliability of a child witness.

Prosecutor Anthony Blackman told the three panel judges that the judge had given "impeccable directions" at the beginning of her summation and the decision should stand.

"If she kept her direction like that, you wouldn't be here," responded Appeal court president Sir James Astwood.

He added that he was having some difficulty understanding why the jury would convict the defendant on one count and find him not guilty on the second one "unless they are confused".

"Something's wrong with this case to make that jury convict and acquit," he said.

The judge had "diluted her direction," he said later. "It looks like confusion to me".

Sir James also questioned how the matter came to be reported to the Police in the first place, saying: "You've got to be careful the people who are investigating don't put things in the child's mind.

"These cases pose a lot of difficulty," added Sir James.

A decision will be made next week.