Justice Scott Baker's ruling against applicants for a judicial review of the UK Government's handling of constitutional reform drew an immediate response yesterday from the United Bermuda Party for what it says is a factual error.

Opposition Leader Pamela Gordon denied a statement made by the judge that the United Bermuda Party is against single seat constituencies.

"What's most disturbing is that you would have a member of the judiciary using as part of his judgment a statement of fact that is incorrect," said Ms Gordon.

She was backed by the party's legal adviser Saul Froomkin who had travelled to London last October with a top level delegation for talks with then minister for the Overseas Territories Baroness Scotland. "Our objection was that there ought to have been a constitutional conference or a referendum on the issue.

"No one ever suggested, certainly in my presence, that the UBP was opposed to single member constituencies. It just did not happen - not with Baroness Scotland anyway," said Mr. Froomkin. "I don't know where all that came from."

Midway through his 15-page summation Justice Baker said: "It seems plain to me that in Bermuda, this is very much a political issue. The Progressive Labour Party supports single member constituencies. The opposition, the United Bermuda Party, does not support single member constituencies."

The ruling Progressive Labour Party is not disputing Ms Gordon's denial.

Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans agreed, when asked, that the Opposition party had not come out specifically against single seat constituencies. But she said the blame for any confusion on the matter must rest with the UBP for lack of clarity and for what she said was a failure on the part of the UBP to educate their supporters.

Dame Lois added: "It's a pity they all got misled by (Warren) Cabral."

Secretary for the Association for Due Process and the Constitution, Warren Cabral, is the driving force behind efforts to force the UK Government to hold a constitutional conference before making any changes to Bermuda's Constitution.

He has consistently maintained that the Association, which supported the legal action in July, is apolitical. And the Association commissioned a poll which showed broad support for a conference.

Ms Gordon is wondering how Justice Baker came to the conclusion that the party does not support single seat constituencies. And she's hoping the Association has not in anyway misrepresented the party's position.

"What we want to know is where he (Justice Baker) got his information from. Who presented that argument to him for him to be able to use it in his summation and it was completely erroneous as it relates to the United Bermuda Party's position... If Warren Cabral and his committee made that statement they were out of line because obviously they weren't representatives of the United Bermuda Party. They are private citizens and therefore they did not go over with this case to argue it on behalf of the United Bermuda Party."

Emphasising the UBP was not part of the Association's legal initiative, she said the party had at one point considered legal action but received legal advice suggesting it would not be in its best interests "to take the issue further".

Asked what was the UBP's preferred electoral system, she said the party's position had evolved somewhat from where it stood during the 1979 constitutional conference when it sought a proportional representation system by single transferable vote. That position was not pursued because it was later felt to be too complex.

Now it supports a "simpler form of proportional representation" which preserves parish boundaries and allows for more than one representative for larger populations.

She said such a system is very similar to single seat constituencies but would have far greater success in achieving voter parity than trying to make each constituency of equal size, without regard to parish boundaries, as the PLP is proposing.

"We've always been supportive of proportional representation and this is the same thing that the PLP government speaks of when they say each vote of equal value. The only way they can have each vote of equal value is through proportional representation."

Justice Baker did note the two parties' positions on electoral reform at the 1979 constitutional conference and the resulting impasse. It was decided then that the matter would be decided in the next election with the winner party recommending their preferred system to the UK Government. Mr. Baker noted the UBP's preference for a proportional representation system by single transferable vote at that conference.

"It seems to me a far cry from saying the UBP is against single member constituencies," said Mr. Froomkin.