Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans' comments on the floor of the House on Wednesday about Canadian prosecutors will no doubt have sparked different reactions around the Island.

There will be those who say, "Oh well, that's Lois". Xenophobes who dislike Canadians as a nationality may agree with her general tenor and might be amused too.

Canadians, on the other hand, have every reason to be outraged.

And the rest of the community should be deeply concerned, not only about the tenor of the comments, but about the Attorney General's fitness for office.

Dame Lois said: "Some prosecutors from Canada from before didn't follow our way and their attitude was 'I must bend over backwards to get a conviction'.

"That's not the British system. Leave the facts before the jury and let them decide. Don't bend over backwards and insist you're not a good prosecutor until you win every case and strut about the streets of Bermuda like you're the best prosecutor that ever came here."

Leaving aside the xenophobia of the remarks, which seem to suggest that nationality determines attitudes, Dame Lois' views on how prosecutors go about their business will surprise most people and may reduce confidence in the judicial system.

Until Wednesday, most people probably thought that within the bounds of the law, prosecutors should and do "bend over backwards" to get a conviction and defence lawyers should "bend over backwards" to get an acquittal.

Certainly, Dame Lois never gave the impression that she was doing anything less than her level best to represent her clients to the best of her ability when she was prominent in the defence Bar.

And it is an insult to suggest that the current group of prosecutors are not doing their best to get convictions given that they would not and should not bring a prosecution at all if they did not believe they could prove their case.

Dame Lois' view of the British or Bermudian brand of justice seems to suggest that prosecutors need not believe in the validity of their case when they bring a prosecution but should just let the facts, or chips, fall where they may.

People accused of crimes would then be the victims of capricious decisions to prosecute. Victims will never have faith that the person charged is the person against whom there is a sound case. And judges and juries will be wasting their time.

This is not to say that people will not be acquitted from time to time. With the best will in the world, the Police and prosecutors will bring cases that end in acquittals or dismissals. If they could claim a 100 percent record, there would be no need for courts at all.

But that does not mean that prosecutors should not do all they can to present their cases as best they can and if they do not, they are failing the system which is what Dame Lois seems to be inviting them to do.

Prosecutors can only be judged on their success rate in getting convictions. A prosecutor who never wins a case either cannot judge whether the case is sound or is very poor in getting convictions.

Just as there would be reasons to worry about the quality of the defence Bar if no one was ever acquitted, so there would be reasons to worry if prosecutors never won a case.

And there have been a number of high profile acquittals in recent months that might suggest that the current roster of prosecutors are not as experienced as some of their predecessors. But to suggest that they should be content to lose sends entirely the wrong message.