working practices entered its second week.

Commission of Inquiry counsel Kim White asked Det. Con. Rudolph Richardson if any procedures were normal in the narcotics department.

And he warned another officer that he did not have to answer questions which could incriminate him.

"How many times did you depart from accepted policies, practices and procedures,'' Mr. White asked Det. Con. Richardson.

He was speaking as Det. Con. Richardson -- the officer at the centre of allegations by a woman ex-detective that she was pressured to alter her witness statement forms in the drugs trial of Ellsworth Wilson -- gave evidence.

Mr. White asked Det. Con. Richardson about procedures as he quizzed him on how vital exhibits for court cases were handled in the drugs squad's Prospect headquarters.

Det. Con. Richardson said: "As far as I was concerned, I tried to abide by Force standing orders.'' Narcotics squad procedures come under fire But Mr. White exposed gaps in the chain of evidence after a heroin derivative with an estimated street value of $53,000 was allegedly seized from Mr. Wilson in February last year.

Under questioning, Det. Con. Richardson admitted that exhibits -- including the drugs -- were locked away without being bagged, signed by him or booked in by the receiving officer.

Mr. White added he had evidence that the receiving officer for the alleged exhibits was Det. Sgt. Stephen Rollin, not Det. Sgt. Stevie Lightbourne, as Det. Con. Richardson had said.

Det. Con. Richardson said: "In the case, the exhibits had to be photographed and I decided... .normally, the normal procedure is you don't sign the exhibits until they are photographed.

"That was the system I followed....I am aware of Force standing orders.

"There are some cases when you don't want any foreign thing, a signature, any foreign thing, on an exhibit.'' Mr. White said Det. Sgt. Rollin had made a note that he had received the main alleged exhibits from Det. Con. Richardson and put it in the secure lock-up issued to each of the three sergeants in the drugs squad.

Det. Con. Richardson said: "I am sure it was Sgt. Lightbourne. Sgt. Rollin probably was present and maybe assisted us.'' But he admitted his diary, although noting the alleged exhibits had been secured, did not say who had accepted them, which of the sergeants' lock-ups they had been put into or who gave the items back to him the next day.

He added, however, that there were no exhibits being held in the secure lock-ups, so there was no chance of a mix-up.

Commission chairman Telford Georges told Det. Con. Richardson: "The whole point of exhibits is that you have to be able to take them and prove they haven't been tampered with. You should trust nobody really. Even if you are handing it to a superior, you should ensure it's heat-sealed so he has to break the seal.

"Just think of the purpose of it -- to preserve the integrity of the exhibit so the Magistrate can see exactly what was taken on the spot. Let everybody who opens it take the responsibility.'' Det. Con. Richardson added that then-Det. Con. Lendrea Davis, who has since quit the Service, was the official note-taker for the Wilson case.

He said he had later spoken to Ms Davis about the fact her original notes from when Mr. Wilson and his car were searched on Cooks Hill did not mention around $1,300 had been taken from him at the time of his arrest.

And he claimed that the then-detective had agreed to make the addition to her now-missing notes.

He said: "I just assumed she was going to do it -- I left it up to her. When I say left it up to her...she agreed and I expected her to do it.'' And he added he did not recall being given two statements from Ms Davis and said he did not pay much attention to a forged signature on a nine-page statement, saying he would have assumed it had been signed by her.

Earlier, Det. Sgt. Lightbourne said that he had been given no specific instructions on recording deposits when the sergeants' lock-ups had been introduced to avoid calling in the official custodian after hours.

But he said: "I would say that it would have been better for this case if I had made a note in my diary, yes.'' He admitted after being told of statements by other officers that he now had some doubt as to whether his recollections about securing all the exhibits, instead of just two machetes, were correct.

Sgt. Lightbourne was asked by Mr. Georges if he had reviewed the case file in the Wilson case which was sent to the Attorney General. Sgt. Lightbourne said he had checked officers' statement forms for spelling errors and evidential content, but added he had no reason to analyse signatures to see if they were real.

Mr. White told him he had given evidence at the Wilson trial that he had given the file back to a senior officer without reading the evidence.

Sgt. Lightbourne said: "Give it back? I would have reviewed this file and submitted the file.'' Mr. White reminded Sgt. Lightbourne that he did not have to answer potentially incriminating questions.

He said: "I think it's right to tell him his answers could place him in jeopardy. He is not bound to reply.'' Sgt. Lightbourne insisted: "I couldn't have said that because I read through all the statements.''