Regiment rebel Magnus Henagulph won a small victory in Supreme Court on Thursday when Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled an affidavit by one of the respondents was inadmissible.

Mr. Henagulph, 28, is suing former Deputy Governor Tim Gurney and Chairman of the Regiments Exemptions Tribunal Wendell Hollis for not granting him exemption from Regiment duty after he claimed he was a conscientious objector.

If he was allowed to submit as a conscientious objector he would have to take on a period of community service under amendments to the Defence Act passed in 1988.

The former Royal Gazette reporter was turned down by the Exemptions Tribunal and was subsequently called for Regiment duty. Mr. Henagulph then turned to the courts and filed a writ against Mr. Gurney and Mr. Hollis.

Mr. Hollis and Mr. Gurney wanted to rely on affidavits from previous proceedings during the hearing that is set to take place in January.

Ms Justice Simmons stated in her ruling that the law deems “scandalous” or “irrelevant” affidavits to be inadmissible.

In Mr. Hollis' affidavit he attempted to explain the reasoning for the Tribunal's decision, which she said is inconsistent from the deponent record.

“Having considered the contents of the affidavit I find that the cited parts of the first respondent's affidavit are either inconsistent with, contradictory of, or supplementary to the record,” Ms Justice Simmons said.

The affidavits, she said, are inadmissible for the purposes of the hearing.

The hearing is scheduled to begin on January 12.