case: "You are the guardians of the Constitution.'' It came from Farias' lawyer Mr. Alan Newman, QC, who claims Government's fish pot ban flouted the Constitution.

The outcome of the case now hangs in the balance after the three appeal judges reserved their decision.

Yesterday saw final arguments by Mr. Newman and rival British lawyer Mr.

Michael Tugendhat, QC, for Government.

It was marked by an impassioned outcry from Mr. Newman in defence of the fishermen.

He said Mr. Tugendhat's claims that there was no evidence fishermen had lost their livelihoods through the ban had caused outrage.

"The problem with my learned friend's submission is that it only holds good if your lordships are invited to abandon common sense.'' The whole point of the ban was to cut down the number of fish being caught.

Said Mr. Newman: "It does not take a financial wizard to come to the conclusion that if you cut down very substantially on the number of fish fishermen take that is going to cut down substantially on income.'' Earlier the courtroom was packed by fishermen who heard Mr. Tugendhat finish his arguments.

Mr. Farias is fighting his conviction for flouting the ban.

In 1991 The 60-year-old Devonshire fisherman was fined $2,000 in Magistrates' Court for possessing and using pots.

Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood last year rejected his appeal against conviction.

Government fisheries warden Mr. David Malpas is the respondent in the Appeal Court hearing.

Mr. Newman has argued the ban breached Bermuda's Constitution because fishermen were deprived of fish pots and income without any legal right of compensation.

Instead, fishermen received Government cash hand-outs for surrendering their pots.

But the amount of cash given them could not be challenged in the courts.

Mr. Newman also stated the regulation which Government used to introduce the ban was unlawful -- or ultra vires.

The regulation made illegal mere possession or use of a fish pot, Mr. Newman said.

Thus any use of a pot as a bird-cage or for decorating a house would be "rendered illegal'' under it. Mr. Newman also argued Magistrate the Wor. John Judge had blundered.

Mr. Judge had wrongly stated Mr. Farias had freshly caught lobsters on his boat when caught defying the ban -- and this was enough to dispose of the case.

Mr. Newman underlined the prosecution now accepted no lobsters were found on Mr. Farias' boat.

But yesterday Mr. Tugendhat said at Magistrates' Court there had been an admission pots had been set for lobsters.

And this was enough to convict Mr. Farias for using them.

Mr. Tugendhat said there was no need for Government to offer compensation when it acts in the public interest -- as it did so with the fish pot ban.

It was not trampling on the Constitution by doing so.

"The Constitution does not offer protection against the consequences of over-fishing.

"It's perfectly clear that if Government had stood by and done nothing, and fish stocks had been exhausted, that these proceedings would never have occurred and Mr. Farias would not have been guilty of the offence he was charged with.

"But nor would he have his business. It is contradictory to reason that if Government steps in to save fish stocks that fishermen should be compensated for loss of business which if Government had not stepped in would have been lost in any case.'' Mr. Tugendhat likened Government's action to that taken in other countries to control firearms, alcohol or obscene material.

He added: "Bona fide regulatory measures do not and have never attracted the right of compensation.'' Mr. Tugendhat asserted no common law rights were displaced by the fish pot ban.

He went on to highlight the "blaze of publicity'' engineered by Mr. Farias over his "act of civil disobedience'' in defying the ban.

It was clear Mr. Farias knew he was breaking the law.

Mr. Judge was fully entitled to come to the conclusion that he reached, said Mr. Tugendhat.

He added Mr. Farias now accepted the ban in principle.

The fisherman's bone of contention now was the issue of compensation, said Mr.

Tugendhat.

The Appeal Court gave no date for their judgement.