A shopkeeping couple accused of discriminating against a foreign customer, and insulting her because of her national origin, have had their names cleared by the Human Rights Tribunal.

However, part of the complaint would have stood — if it hadn’t been for a minor point of law which the tribunal “urged” should be changed.

The grievances were brought by Canadian resident Caroline Burchall against Carmon and Belinda Cyrus, proprietors of the Bermuda School Uniforms Shop, over what she called “a barrage of insults”.

Although her allegations against the store owners were dismissed, the tribunal found that Mrs Cyrus had delivered insults based on national origin.

But because the exchange occurred within the shop itself, which failed to qualify as a public place as stipulated in law, the complaint against her had to be dismissed. The tribunal also found that while Mrs Cyrus hadn’t provided the complainant with goods in her usual manner, the “catalyst for the unprofessional conduct” had been an e-mail of complaint sent by Ms Burchall to the principal of Francis Patton School.

The complainant had vented frustration over her difficulty in obtaining uniforms from the shop on a number of earlier occasions.

In a ruling delivered this week, the tribunal found that Mrs Cyrus had been “clearly infuriated” by the disparaging e-mail at the time of her September 22, 2012 confrontation in the shop with Ms Burchall.

“As the sole supplier to the school, this must have been an important contract for the Bermuda School Uniforms shop,” the judgment read, adding that Mrs Cyrus had seen the complaint as an attack on her business and livelihood.

The complainant’s experience of poor service stemmed from Mrs Cyrus being called to meet with the principal and seeing the e-mail, rather than the customer’s national origin.

But the store owner’s repeated references to Ms Burchall as “you people” were “plainly references to foreign nationals”, the tribunal found.

The statements, caught on video, included “I am sick and tired of you all coming here disrespecting Bermudians like we ain’t nothing” and “You people carry on bad — that’s why Bermuda is the way it is”.

As such, they were “clearly insulting and designed to promote ill will against a section of the public, namely foreign nationals”.

Mr Cyrus was cleared of any complaint, but the tribunal found “cogent evidence” against his wife.

Under section 8A (1) of the 1981 Act, a prohibited racial incitement must occur in a public place or at a public meeting — which, in turn, is defined in the Public Order Act 1963.

Since the outburst occurred within the shop it didn’t meet the definition of a public place as drafted in the legislation.

The judgment, signed by tribunal chairman Richard Horseman and members Naomi Schroter and Millard Thompson, said that if it hadn’t been for “this technicality of law”, the tribunal would have found that Mrs Cyrus had used words that “were insulting and likely to promote or incite ill will or hostility”.

“The tribunal would urge the Attorney General to consider amending the legislation so as to address this anomaly,” the judgment concluded, suggesting the definition of a public place as set down in the 1907 Criminal Code should be adopted instead.

Mr Cyrus declined to comment on the matter yesterday when contacted by The Royal Gazette.