A senior Police officer has vowed to continue his fight for justice despite his acquittal in a high profile traffic case.

The top Police prosecutor has now applied for reimbursement from his bosses for his lengthy legal battle.

Insp. Kenrick James, of Alexander Road, Devonshire, was yesterday acquitted of driving without due care on Middle Road, at the junction of Montpelier Road, on September 23, 1996.

The head of Police prosecutions had denied the charge which stemmed from a two-car accident.

Last year, P.c. Beverly Basden testified that while she was directing traffic at the junction, James ignored her signal ordering traffic to stop on Middle Road and crashed into a car occupying Luisa Almeida, of Pembroke, who was turning onto Middle Road from Montpelier Road.

But James maintained that the accident was the fault of P.c. Basden and claimed that the Police wanted to shift the blame from the officer to him.

Yesterday, Magistrate Arthur Hodgson said the officer who was directing the traffic at the Devonshire intersection only used her hands to signal traffic to stop.

"The Police officer must also use eye contact and other body movements,'' he said. "She should have checked to see if the traffic had stopped.'' With his acquittal, James is now seeking from the Police the cost of defending himself against the due care charge.

He claimed that the charge was only brought forward as the result of "malice'' on the part of the Police.

James said the initial computer report on the accident recommended that he not be prosecuted.

He claimed "those'' who decided to prosecute him had expressed displeasure over a promotion he had received.

And his lawyer Michael Telemaque said that proper Police procedures, like taking measurements at the accident scene, were not followed after the collision. But Mr. Hodgson pointed out that failure to follow proper Police procedures did not constitute an improper motive, a requirement for the precedent-setting move.

James also told Mr. Hodgson: "I'm going to give evidence on the negligence of the Crown Counsel who prosecuted this case.'' According to Mr. Telemaque, Crown Counsel Leighton Rochester should not have proceeded with the case. He claimed the move contradicted an Attorney General's Chamber's policy which states that a matter should not be launched unless it was reasonably anticipated that a conviction will be obtained.

He claimed that Mr. Rochester was aware of Police motives for prosecuting the case.

But Mr. Rochester insisted that he had no direct contact with the Police on the matter other than to inform them to notify witnesses when to attend court.

"I've worked from the file the Police prepared,'' he added. "This was not brought here frivolously or maliciously. It was a simple due care case.'' James then produced an undisclosed letter regarding a disciplinary charge levied against him. Reportedly it stemmed from a conversation regarding a story about the case which appeared in The Royal Gazette .

Mr. Telemaque said the letter will be used to show the improper Police motive behind the due care charge.

Upon reading the letter Mr. Hodgson adjourned the matter until January 19 to allow Mr. Rochester to seek instructions.

POLICE POL