The Court of Appeal has been accused of failing to move into the 21st century for not electronically recording all of its proceedings.Several appellants claim they discovered after their hearings were held that no recording was made and no official record was available to them of what took place.Businessman Dilton Robinson, anti-conscription group Bermudians Against the Draft (BAD) and former civil servant LeYoni Junos have all complained but have been told the Court of Appeal president can decide whether to record sessions.They claim the court is compelled in law to make a recording but Government House and the Supreme Court insist that’s not the case.Supreme Court registrar Charlene Scott told The Royal Gazette: “The president makes a decision on how to run his court. The judge’s note is the official record, unless otherwise indicated.“It is the president’s discretion as to whether there will a recording or not. There is no law I can refer to, just that it is a given that all judges can decide how best to run their respective courts.”Former Governor Sir Richard Gozney told this newspaper earlier this year: “It is not mandatory for Appeal Court cases to be recorded; the legislation does not require it.“It is not felt that a lack of recording puts anyone at a disadvantage because the Appeal Court is not looking at new evidence or the like, rather at a lower court’s interpretation of standing legislation.”Mr Robinson, who has been involved in a long-running legal dispute with HSBC, claimed the lack of recordings put him and others at a disadvantage. “We are all prejudiced in our ability to move forward,” he said.He believes all Court of Appeal hearings should be recorded and all parties should be able to obtain an audio copy, as they can, for a cost, with Supreme Court proceedings.Mr Robinson requested a copy of an appeal hearing last year and was told in an e-mail by an administrative officer: “Disks and transcripts of the Court of Appeal hearings are not provided and are used for court purposes only, as directed by the president.”He complained to Government House and was told in a letter by Deputy Governor David Arkley it was “standard procedure, not only in Bermuda, but in courts in the UK also” for the Court of Appeal to not make recordings available.BAD founder Larry Marshall Sr, whose sons Lamont and Larry Jr lost a case concerning conscription in the Court of Appeal last year, said it would be in the interests of justice to record sessions.Mr Marshall Jr requested an audio copy of a November 7 hearing but was told by Ms Scott in a November 16 e-mail: “There were no recordings of the hearing that took place on November 7 and as a result no disk can be made for the same.”Ms Junos, who has represented herself in several civil cases, asked for an audio recording from the Court of Appeal last June and was told by the same administrative officer who dealt with Mr Robinson: “Court of Appeal recordings are not available to anyone, as ordered by the president of [the] Court of Appeal. It is just not provided.”Ms Junos noted that the Court of Appeal Act 1964 describes the court as a “superior Court of Record” and states: “The Court of Appeal shall have all the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Supreme Court.”She said since the Supreme Court was required to keep and make available a record of proceedings, so too was the higher Court of Appeal.Ms Junos said that record, as defined by a 1999 amendment to the Interpretation Act 1951, included a “record created, stored, generated, received or communicated by electronic...means”.Attorney General Kim Wilson told the Senate in March last year that a “Court Smart” system had been installed in Bermuda’s courts, allowing for accurate and detailed transcripts of proceedings.Asked in connection with this article if she believed those whose appeal cases were not recorded were at a disadvantage, a spokeswoman for the AG said: “The Judiciary is separate from the AG and the AG does not get involved, hence no comment can be offered.”Useful website: www.bermudalaws.bm.