directed by a Supreme Court judge, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Ruthburn Adverse Phillips was found guilty of forcing a 35-year-old American woman to have anal sex last April and was sentenced to three years in prison by Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade.

Because of the guilty verdict, Phillips did not face alternate charges of attempted rape and indecent assault.

An appeal by Phillips' lawyer, Mr. Philip Perinchief, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on July 6. The court said it would deliver a written ruling at a later date.

During the trial, the court was told that the woman, recently divorced from her Bermudian husband, went willingly to a secluded beach with Phillips on December 12, 1990. While there, Phillips forced the woman to have anal sex despite her protests.

Phillips argued that the woman agreed to have sex with him and that he thought he had entered her vagina.

In its written ruling, the tribunal said Mr. Perinchief argued that his client was prejudiced by the inclusion in the indictment of the alternate counts to the buggery charge.

He said that with attempted rape, it became "necessary for the prosecution to prove absence of consent, whereas that element formed no part of the offence of buggery''.

However, the court ruled that "we did not see how the applicant could possibly have been prejudiced by the form in which the indictment was framed''.

Mr. Perinchief's first three grounds of appeal related to his assertion that Mrs. Wade, in directing the jury, did not "fairly'' convey the defence that Phillips mistakenly entered the woman's anus.

The court ruled that it was true that Mrs. Wade suggested the defence had only "peripherally'' raised the issue of mistake, and that the jurors probably would "have no difficulty in discounting'' it.

However, it agreed that Mrs. Wade emphasised the jury's duty to give the issue of mistake careful consideration. The court concluded it was unlikely the jury was misled.

The court also ruled that Mr. Perinchief wrongfully asserted that the doctor stated that a mistake "was a distinct possibility''.

Mr. Perinchief's argument that Mrs. Justice Wade's summing up did not present the case fairly and in a balanced way to the jury, was also dismissed. "It is enough to say that we found no substance in that contention,'' the court ruled.