Convinced that the Immigration department had made a mistake, the Bermuda Dental Board engaged in "behind the scenes" activities as it attempted to have an English dentist's work permit revoked, lawyer David Kessaram told a court yesterday.

Mr. Kessaram was outlining his case on the first day of a judicial review hearing in which his client Dr. David Thompson is seeking to have the court quash a decision by Dental Board examiners to fail him in an examination which would have cleared the way for him to practice dentistry in Bermuda.

In February Dr. Thompson received a work permit to practice after being offered a job by local dentist Dr. David Dyer.

But the Dental Board later wrote to Dr. Dyer saying that only Bermudians or spouses of Bermudians could sit the qualifying examination - a policy not supported by the Dental Practitioner's Act.

The Dental Board later allowed Dr. Thompson to sit the examination after Dr. Dyer complained to the Health Minister.

Dr. Thompson sat the examination in early April and was informed a week later that he had failed. But he was not allowed to re-sit the exam and took his case to court.

The dentist is alleging that the Examining Committee and the Dental Board were biased against him, and that the examiners were inconsistent, unfair and irrational in their evaluation of his performance in the exam.

Much of Dr. Thompson's case centres around what took place during the examination and the marking system used to evaluate his performance.

And the day ended with Dr. David Thompson taking to the stand armed with swaths of drawings and diagrams to illustrate his version of events when he took the examination.

Mr. Kessaram told the court that he would be bringing evidence which proves not only bias against his client but also that the examiners used a marking system that was "unreasonable, irrational and unsystematic".

"In order to evaluate... there has to be a standard by which he is judged," Mr. Kessaram said. "It is apparent that there was no standard which was applied, they (examiners) couldn't agree themselves on what constitutes good, poor, acceptable or unacceptable performance."

Moreover, said Mr. Kessaram, the Board's bias was clear in their actions prior to and even on the day the examination took place.

Three days before the examination Board member and examiner Dr. Rhonda James wrote to the Minister of Health voicing her "strong disagreement" that Dr. Thompson had been permitted to take the exam, the court heard.

"It was the view of the Board prior to the examination that the work permit...was issued because of a confusion. But there was in fact no confusion, no misunderstanding and no mistake," he told the court.

"But the Board considered they had made a mistake and was actively trying to have that rectified" by arranging to have the work permit revoked, Mr. Kessaram continued.

On the day of the examination Board Chairman Richard Cann continued efforts to have the work permit revoked when he attempted to get the Minister of Health to fix the situation by asking the Immigration Minister to cancel the work permit. But he found the Health Minister was unavailable.

"While the exam was taking place in one room in Dr. James' office, the Board was meeting in another room being appraised of his efforts earlier during the day to have the work permit revoked. He was telling them the effort had failed and therefore the examination had to proceed."

Mr. Kessaram said that Dr. Thompson's own testimony, affidavits sworn by the examiners - Dr. James, Dr. Leroy Simmons and Dr. Deborah Tuzo - and Dental Board Chairman Dr. Richard Cann, will all be used as evidence to prove his case.

And he also plans to call two patients used in the examination and a nursing assistant who was present at the examination.

Dental Board lawyers Delroy Duncan and Maurice Cottle, of law firm Trott and Duncan, are sitting in on the case but have declined to take part, having filed an appeal against the judicial review going ahead in the first place.

"We would ask your ladyship to consider how much weight you attach to the evidence when the people who have sworn the affidavits refuse to come to court," said Mr. Kessaram.

The case, which is being heard by Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller, got underway after days of legal arguments when the Board argued that the current proceedings were an inappropriate way to resolve the dispute.

The Board's efforts to stay the proceedings pending the results of the appeal failed earlier this week.