The fingerprints of a man accused of attempted murder match those found on a motorcycle stolen 500 yards from the alleged attack, a Supreme Court jury heard yesterday.

David Dill, 30, denies attempting to murder Daffyd Herman-Smith at his Pembroke residence on April 15.

Police fingerprint officer Ian Grant told Senior Crown counsel Brian Calhoun yesterday that fingerprints found on a blue Suzuki motorcycle stolen 500 yards from Herman-Smith's Second Avenue residence matched Dill's.

But lawyer Julian Hall, representing Dill, questioned Mr. Grant on the security of the Police scenes of crime office and questioned who had access to the evidence before Mr. Grant examined it.

The 11-woman, one-man jury has been told that between 4.30 and 4.50 a.m. on April 15, Herman-Smith heard a noise coming from upstairs in the house. He went upstairs to investigate and found an intruder -- allegedly Dill.

The intruder is said to have attacked Herman-Smith and a fight ensued. Both men fell out of the door which Smith's wife, Julia Lopez Fernandez, had opened.

Once outside, Herman-Smith realised he had been stabbed and cut and was losing blood. Mrs. Fernandez also noticed that she had cuts and bruises.

Neighbours responded to the shouts of the victims, calling the Police.

That same night, at a residence some 500 yards up the road, a blue Suzuki motorcycle -- registered AE735 owned by Police prosecutor Sgt. Philip Taylor -- was stolen. At the scene was the oven mitt taken from Herman-Smith's residence and a white sock, both with Herman-Smith's blood on them.

Mr. Grant yesterday said on comparison, finger and palm prints lifted from the stolen blue Suzuki and taken from Dill himself were identical and that there was no doubt there was not any discrepancy between them.

"It is my conclusion and there is no doubt in my mind as I have found a number of ridge characteristics in agreement, both the fingerprint form, the photos and the palm print, the marks in the photo are identical,'' he said.

"I compared the left ring finger and left palm print form and these are identical with the identification made by the same person.'' Mr. Hall, however found fault with the security arrangements of the fingerprinting office, questioning who had access to the evidence before Mr.

Grant.

He questioned whether the evidence could have been changed by sleight of hand.

The case continues.