champion of Bermuda's fishermen.

Mr. Michael Tugendhat, QC, said Mr. Farias' defiance of Government's fish pot ban was a personal gesture.

And he poured scorn on allegations fishermen were facing ruin because of the ban.

He added: "There is no evidence at all that any fisherman is formerly or now crying out for justice.'' Mr. Tugendhat said the ban -- imposed on March 30 1990 -- was designed to safeguard fish stocks.

And he asked: Would fishermen have been demanding justice if stocks had been exhausted? Mr. Tugendhat was opening Government's case in Mr. Farias' Appeal Court fight against conviction for flouting the ban.

In 1991 the Devonshire fisherman was fined $2,000 by Magistrate the Wor. John Judge for possessing and using pots.

Last year the 60-year-old lost his Supreme Court appeal against conviction.

Respondent in the Appeal Court hearing is Mr. David Malpas, Government fisheries' warden.

At the outset yesterday Mr. Farias' British lawyer Mr. Alan Newman, QC, completed his case.

He reasserted Government's ban breached the Bermuda Constitution because fishermen were deprived of property -- their fish pots and income -- without compensation.

Instead fishermen were offered "ex gratia'' payments -- those made as an act of grace -- which could not be challenged in the courts.

This, said Mr. Newman, was his main argument against Government.

Mr. Newman also emphasised former Environment Minister the Hon. Ann Carwright DeCouto had exceeded her powers when she imposed the ban.

He said the legislation which brought in the ban did not give her the authority.

Mr. Newman also argued Mr. Judge had blundered in his Farias ruling.

Mr. Judge had stated the fisherman had aboard his boat freshly caught lobsters when he was caught defying the ban.

But there was no evidence to support Mr. Judge's statement.

"The Magistrate came to an unfounded finding of fact concerning lobsters.'' Mr. Tugendhat immediately sought to punch multiple holes in Mr. Newman's case.

He refuted claims fishermen hit by the ban had suffered a loss of livelihood.

"There is no evidence that any fisherman has lost his livelihood. The prosecution do not accept that this is correct.

"So far as the appellant is concerned he never said he lost his livelihood.'' There was also no evidence ex gratia payments offered to fishermen were inadequate.

And Mr. Tugendhat attacked Mr. Newman for hailing Mr. Farias as an environmentalist.

Mr. Farias had been adamantly opposed to the ban.

Mr. Tugendhat added there was nothing to support allegations fishermen faced ruin.

On the contrary, the then assistant Government fisheries director Mr. John Barnes had stated some fishermen were prospering as a result of the ban.

It was also nonsense to make out Mr. Farias was representing other fishermen, said Mr. Tugendhat.

"The trial of this appellant was not in any way a representative action.'' Mr. Tugendhat sought to shoot down the argument the ban amounted to a deprivation of property.

Fishermen had always been granted licences which expired yearly.

Anyone receiving a licence understood it may not be renewed, argued Mr.

Tugendhat.

Therefore it was wrong to characterise non-renewal of licence as a deprivation.