Che Perinchief and Karen Thomas have "no case to answer'' to charges that they swore at and assaulted a Police officer in the course of his duties, their lawyer claimed yesterday.

Philip Perinchief, who is representing both accused, said the prosecution had not discharged its duty and had not brought evidence to prove the charges.

The allegations stem from an incident at the Elbow Beach Hotel car park last November. Che Perinchief is charged with swearing at and assaulting a constable who was trying to arrest him.

Thomas, his girlfriend, also joined the melee, the court has heard.

Che Perinchief, 24, of Zuill's Park Road, Smith's Parish, is the son of former Assistant Police Commissioner Wayne Perinchief.

He has denied two charges of assaulting a Police officer and one charge of using offensive words in a public place.

Karen Thomas, 38, of Railway Trail, Southampton, also pleaded not guilty to the same charges.

The defence lawyer said that one of the officers, Det. Sgt. Dennis Gordon testified that he did not find the words Thomas used during the incident offensive.

The other officer at the scene, Det. Con. Mark Clarke, has told the court that he had used such words before himself "although not offensively''.

Consequently, Mr. Perinchief argued that the test of whether the words used were offensive, depended on a subjective and not an objective test.

Moreover, Mr. Perinchief said these kinds of words were becoming more common as they are heard on television.

He said Det. Con. Clarke was a senior Police officer and was no stranger to hearing such language while he was working.

A subjective test was even more necessary, he said, because there was no-one else in the vicinity of the incident apart from the accused and the officers that night.

Mr. Perinchief said Thomas went with Det. Sgt. Gordon willingly when he asked and was not violent.

Similarly, Mr. Perinchief said there was no evidence that Che Perinchief assaulted Det. Sgt. Gordon, who had no contact with the accused.

As a result Mr. Perinchief said this case was "finely focused'' on what occurred between Che Perinchief and Det. Con. Clarke.

Mr. Perinchief said Che Perinchief only became difficult when he was trying to retrieve his trousers which had fallen to his ankles.

However Det. Con. Clarke said he did not remember this event. Had it happened, he said, he would have afforded Che Perinchief an opportunity to preserve his dignity.

Prosecutor Sgt. Kenrick James disagreed with Mr. Perinchief that a subjective test was needed to assess whether the words used were offensive in a legal sense.

He said the test was an objective one by virtue of the meanings of the words used and how that meaning would be reasonably inferred.

Sgt. James said that the words directed at Det. Con. Clarke during the incident were offensive given that definition.

And he said that it was improper for Mr. Perinchief to use Det. Con. Clarke's statement that he had used similar words at some point in his life, as evidence in support of the conclusion that the words used by the accused during the incident were inoffensive.

Sgt. James said there was ample evidence to show that a ferocious and extensive struggle took place between the officers and Che Perinchief which required the officers to radio for assistance.

Acting Senior Magistrate Cheryl Ann Mapp will deliver her ruling on the defence's no case to answer submission on August 19.