avoid joining the Bermuda Regiment.

In a dramatic judgment, the court stated Governor Lord Waddington may grant "total exemption'' from military service.

The three judges made their declaration as they ruled on Rod Attride-Stirling's fight against joining the Regiment.

Yesterday lawyer Attride-Stirling claimed victory for all conscientious objectors.

"It is a victory for human rights. The Court of Appeal has shown that on the question of human rights they take a liberal view. It's something people can take comfort from,'' he said.

He added: "I'm extremely happy the whole thing is behind me. It's a great victory for me personally, but more importantly the court has given a clear indication that human rights are going to be held to a high standard.

"This is the case, regardless of what Government does.'' Attride-Stirling said the case should never have gone to trial. And he pointed a critical finger at the Crown and the Governor.

"Government should be embarrassed.'' Attride-Stirling had appealed against last year's Supreme Court order that he serve in the Regiment in a non-combative role.

Chief Justice the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward had dismissed claims that Attride-Stirling's constitutional rights had been violated.

Earlier this month, however, Attride-Stirling's lawyer, Mr. Ian Kawaley, argued Section 27 of the Defence Act 1965 -- which requires conscientious objectors to serve in the Regiment in non-combative roles -- clashed with the Bermuda Constitution.

He stressed section 8 of the Constitution safeguarded the freedom of conscientious objectors to perform civilian duties outside the military services.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal said it would not be declaring the provisions of Section 27 "void''.

This was because they were "unobjectionable in so far as they relate to conscientious objectors who seek exemption from combatant duties only''.

But the court stated the Defence Act should be read as "excepting from reporting'' for regimental duty any persons "who can show that they conscientiously object to serving in a military organisation''.

"We declare accordingly and make no further order.'' The court added: "The effect of this judgment is that the Exemption Tribunal may now entertain applications for total exemption, and, when reporting to the Governor, should indicate the precise nature of the objection submitted to it.

"In a proper case His Excellency may then grant total exemption from military service.'' The court's ruling is expected to have widespread implications for Regiment recruitment.

Attride-Stirling was first selected by ballot for military service in 1985, but his training was deferred because he was a student abroad for many years.

On returning to Bermuda he had to present himself for medical examination and enlistment on October 6, 1992.

He applied to the Exemption Tribunal on October 5 to be excused from service as a conscientious objector.

The tribunal, however, recommended to the Governor that he should start boot camp, serving in non-combatant duties.

And Mr. Justice Ward agreed, ruling: "I have concluded that the requirement that the applicant should serve in a non-combatant role only is a provision which is reasonably required in the interest of defence.'' Mr. Kawaley asked the appeal judges to make a declaration that Section 27 (4) of the Defence Act was "constitutionally void''.

"The case is not about a clever, privileged lawyer seeking to evade civic responsibility.'' Crown Counsel, Mr. Peter DeJulio, said an individual's freedom in any society was never absolute.

And Section 8 of the Bermuda Constitution, he added, recognised the interests of national defence.

Mr. DeJulio said one person not reporting for Regimental duty could make a difference.

"Every last man counts.'' The appeal judges noted the Defence Act only allowed exemptions of those who genuinely objected to doing combatant duty.

"We do not think it is disputed by the Attorney General that recognition is now widely given to the fact that there are those who genuinely object to being compelled to serve in a military organisation in any capacity whatsoever.

`Victory' for conscientious objector "It is not for us to consider whether we think such an attitude is reasonable: it is one which falls within section 8 (1) of the Constitution, that Constitution having been greatly influenced by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was signed and ratified by the United Kingdom and applied to the dependent territories including Bermuda..'' Yesterday Attride-Stirling said: "The Crown rejected my offer to do any other form of community service. I always made it clear I wasn't trying to shirk national service.'' He added: "The whole matter is now at an end, as far as I'm concerned.'' Attride-Stirling believed Government may now amend the Defence Act.

Mr. DeJulio described the court's judgment as "cryptic'', saying it was not clear-cut.

He understood the judgment extended the meaning of the Defence Act by declaring conscientious objectors could be exempt from military service.

But this did not necessarily open the floodgates, since people wanting to avoid the Regiment would have to prove they are really conscientious objectors.

"They would have to prove they are of good faith.'' Mr. DeJulio said the possibility remained of those exempt being forced to do other forms of community service, which could be equally "onerous''.

He added it was too soon to say whether the Crown would appeal to the Privy Council.

"We have to study the judgment and absorb it.'' The Bermuda Regiment has not yet responded to the judgment.