Anti-conscription campaigners launched a Supreme Court battle yesterday to get the "immoral and unlawful" policy outlawed.

Delroy Duncan, lawyer for 14 men known collectively as Bermudians Against the Draft (BAD), argued that insufficient efforts are made to recruit volunteers before forcing men to serve, thus breaching the Defence Act.

During the landmark case – the first group action of its type – Mr. Duncan also claimed the policy of conscripting only men amounts to gender discrimination.

"The members of BAD believe that the defendants' policy of conscription is immoral and unlawful. They also believe that, if the Regiment was properly administered, its numbers would be filled by voluntary enlistment from men and women alike and it would enjoy an upswing in morale and usefulness," he told the court.

All Bermudian men aged over 18 and under 23 are liable for call-up through a random ballot administered by the Defence Department.

The Judicial Review of that policy, which is being heard by Chief Justice Richard Ground, saw key figures including Regiment Commander William White and members of BAD gather at the Supreme Court.

BAD campaigners spoke prior to the hearing of their hope that mandatory service – which they condemn as tantamount to slavery – will be replaced by a paid voluntary force as a result of their action.

They also claimed that conscripts suffer physical and emotional ill-treatment. However, Mr. Duncan's arguments yesterday focused on legal technicalities, not claims of abuse.

He claimed no positive steps have been made to recruit volunteers to the Regiment before filling its ranks with conscripts, when the Defence Act says conscription should only be enforced if it is proved there is an inadequate number of volunteers.

He cited an affidavit from former Defence Administrator Larry Burchall, sworn on behalf of the defendants in the case – the Governor, Deputy Governor, Commander of the Regiment and Attorney General. In it, Mr. Burchall said there was an inadequate number of volunteers, just two in 2006.

Mr. Duncan told the court the defendants had not produced evidence of efforts to retain soldiers past the mandatory service period of three years and two months or to encourage voluntary enlistment.

He also listed criticisms of the Regiment made during a 2005 Fitness for Role inspection and a 2005 Defence Board Review.

"The FFR report and the 2006 Review tell a sorry tale: leadership is poor, training and equipment are inadequate, pay needs to be addressed, volunteers need to be encouraged to join, and existing personnel need to be encouraged to stay. The evidence before the court is that the defendants have made no efforts at all to address the problems that have been identified," he said.

He also criticised the Governor for failing to regularly review the number of soldiers needed by the Regiment, which has roles including quelling civil disorder, hurricane relief and ceremonial functions.

The established strength was set at 630 after a review 16 years ago when, argued Mr. Duncan, this should be assessed annually in order for the court to be satisfied that there are not enough volunteers and conscription is necessary.

On the subject of alleged gender discrimination, Mr. Duncan argued that women could and should perform non-combatant and ceremonial functions within the Regiment, with a quota set for recruiting them.

He criticised the Governor's failure to consider this unlawful, telling the court: "If that had happened and if appropriate steps had been taken to encourage sufficient females to volunteer, the need for conscripting males might not have arisen."

Finally, junior counsel for BAD, Eugene Johnston pointed to a notice in the Official Gazette calling up one of the conscripts. He said this notice was unlawfully signed off by the Defence Administrator when this power rests with the Deputy Governor.

The case is set to conclude tomorrow.