A Privy Council ruling in favour of Bermudians Against the Draft (B.A.D.) could prompt the abolition of a conscription policy dating back 45 years.

The controversial policy of making men serve in the Regiment has been in place since it was formed in 1965, enjoying the support of successive governments and governors.

Hundreds of recruits, ranging in age from 18 to 32, are conscripted each year when their names are selected by a random ballot. They are subject to being arrested, fined or even jailed if they refuse to serve.

B.A.D. will rely on several arguments today when they take their fight against the policy to the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal for the Overseas Territories. Only one of those arguments could get conscription outlawed as it affects all young Bermudian men. That is that the policy is discriminatory under the Human Rights Act because only men, and not women, are forced to serve.

According to lawyer for B.A.D. Delroy Duncan: "If the appeal succeeds on the discrimination argument, which is that conscription only applies to men and not women, then the conscription regime in Bermuda would be unlawful."

He added: "You only have to look at comments made by past governors and ministers of Labour and Home Affairs about their view on whether conscription has a place in Bermuda, to see that conscription is of enormous significance. There are obviously generations to come that will be affected by the Privy Council decision either way."

If the Privy Council rules in favour of B.A.D. on the human rights argument, there would be no need to argue the remaining points any further.

However, Mr. Duncan explained: "In the event that the Privy Council rejects that argument, then there are four other arguments, any one of which, if they are successful, only relate to the men who appealed to the Privy Council."

The first of the other arguments is that Government and Government House must show they tried to fill the Regiment with voluntary recruits who can be male or female before resorting to conscripting the members of B.A.D.

The group claims there is no evidence before the court that voluntary enlistment proved inadequate, and on the basis of evidence from previous court hearings "they have made no real effort to secure volunteers".

The next point is that the decision to conscript the B.A.D. members was because policymakers "did not appreciate that voluntary enlistment had first to be tried and found inadequate".

The third point is that the decision to impose conscription was made without first considering whether a quota should be fixed for a certain number of women to serve in the Regiment.

The fourth is that the men's call-up notices were invalid for technical reasons relating to the way they were published.

Mr. Duncan said if the members of B.A.D. should win on any of the four points relating specifically to them, conscription in general could still continue.

It would be up to other individuals to contest their own conscription through legal action if they wished to. However, he warned that the courts could rule it too late for further claims to be brought.

Since launching their legal case in 2006, B.A.D. founder Larry Marshall has made a number of public comments suggesting that conscripts to the Bermuda Regiment are subjected to both physical and sexual abuse.

This newspaper revealed last year that 14 male soldiers made allegations of sexual assault or harassment against them between 1989 and 2002.

The Regiment has already completed an internal probe into those claims, but said that they were dealt with at the time and no fresh evidence has come to light since. The Human Rights Commission is still in the process of investigating.

Asked why allegations of abuse do not form part of the B.A.D. case, Mr. Duncan explained this is because they were not part of the case as previously heard and rejected by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in Bermuda in 2008.

"An appeal is an appeal against a court decision and it's rare we can introduce new material," he said.