Attride-Stirling court ruling would not hit recruitment.

Lt. Col. David Burch believed conscientious objectors wanting to avoid military service would be more likely now to turn to the courts.

But he pointed out less than five percent of the annual intake of recruits claimed to be conscientious objectors.

"It is a negligible amount.'' Last week, the Court of Appeal stated Governor Lord Waddington may grant conscientious objectors "total exemption'' from military service.

The declaration came as the court ruled on lawyer Attride-Stirling's fight against joining the Regiment.

Attride-Stirling had appealed against last year's Supreme Court order that he serve in the Regiment in a non-combative role.

He argued the order violated his right under the Bermuda Constitution not to join a military organisation.

His lawyer Mr. Ian Kawaley said the Defence Act 1965 -- which requires conscientious objectors to serve in the Regiment in non-combative roles -- clashed with the Bermuda Constitution.

In their ruling, the appeal judges stated the Defence Act should be read as "excepting from reporting'' for regimental duty any persons "who can show that they conscientiously object to serving in a military organisation''.

The court added: "The effect of this judgment is that the Exemption Tribunal may now entertain applications for total exemption, and, when reporting to the Governor, should indicate the precise nature of the objection submitted to it.

"In a proper case His Excellency may then grant total exemption from military service.'' Attride-Stirling hailed the ruling as a victory for all conscientious objectors.

"It is a victory for human rights. The Court of Appeal has shown that on the question of human rights they take a liberal view. It's something people can take comfort from,'' he said.

Crown Counsel Mr. Peter DeJulio who had fought the appeal described the ruling as "cryptic'', saying it seemed to extend the meaning of the Defence Act.

An appeal to the Privy Council by the Crown has not been ruled out.

Lt. Col. Burch said the ruling amounted to a "challenge'' to the law.

It was really a matter for lawyers to argue over -- not the Regiment, he said.

Lt. Col. Burch said he imagined the Exemption Tribunal -- which is made up of civilians -- would probably have more work to do following the judgment.

"I don't think it will really have any bearing on recruitment, although it probably makes people more aware there is a legal recourse.

"I expect lawyers will have a field day arguing over the judgment and clarifying it.'' Lt. Col. Burch said most people were conscientious objectors on religious grounds.

He pointed out such people often carried out non-combative duties in the Regiment, such as cooking or playing music. They were required to learn about handling weapons, without having to fire them.

"This is really for their own safety, as much as anyone else's,'' he said.