A London High Court Judge ordered claimants seeking judicial review of the process of constitutional reform to pay legal costs to the British Government after the bid failed, The Royal Gazette has learned.

The claimants - Sir John Plowman, Dr. Stanley Ratteray, Gloria McPhee and Gilbert Darrell - were represented by London law firm Lovell's in an action supported by the Association for Due Process and the Constitution.

The Association contends that the British Government has to organise a constitutional conference before making any major changes to Bermuda's Constitution.

In awarding costs to the Foreign Secretary, Justice Scott Baker was not swayed by the argument that the application was a public interest challenge.

Lawyer for the claimant's, Richard Gordon, QC, had argued that the action was a "public interest challenge" brought by "disinterested citizens".

"Because of the public interest nature of the challenge, even on the full hearing one sees that public interest groups such as Greenpeace have not been ordered to pay the costs, even though they lose on full hearing," said Mr. Gordon.

"It is not a public interest pressure group in the Greenpeace sense at all," countered Jonathan Crow, representing the Foreign Secretary. "It is a hot political potato in Bermuda."

Mr. Gordon persisted by saying that a "political dimension" did not mean it was not a public interest challenge. To which Justice Baker replied: "I think this is a case where the Secretary of State should get his costs."

The Royal Gazette has so far been unable to determine exactly how much the Association would have to pay to comply with the order.

A transcript of Justice Baker's 15-page ruling was obtained by The Royal Gazette this week.

Justice Baker had earlier made the observation himself that the issue of single seat constituencies in Bermuda was a political one.

"The cornerstone of his (Mr. Gordon's) argument really, I think, turns on the position with regard to single member constituencies. It seems plain to me that in Bermuda this is very much a political issue.

"The Progressive Labour Party supports single member constituencies and they are, as I have already indicated, the governing party at the present time. The Opposition, the United Bermuda Party, does not support single member constituencies. Mr. Gordon is concerned that single member constituencies is one of the parameters to which the Boundaries Commission must work."

He dismissed all of the main arguments put forward by Mr. Gordon at the end of the two hour hearing on July 13 - just days before an Order was made amending Bermuda's Constitution to give the Boundaries Commission new powers.

The Order, which came into effect on August 21, empowered the Boundaries Commission to recommend the boundaries and number of constituencies in a revamped single seat electoral system.

The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether to go to a full hearing reviewing the Foreign Secretary's decision to proceed with the Order.

Had the application for a full judicial review succeeded, the Order would have been, at the very least, postponed.

In his ruling Justice Baker gave a summary outline of Bermuda's political system, the implications of the draft Order in Council and referred to the impasse over electoral reform at the 1979 constitutional conference.

The decision of that conference, noted Justice Baker, was that both political parties would campaign for their preferred system at the next general election.

"If either party did so and won the election with a majority of seats and of the popular vote, the elected government would recommend to the United Kingdom government their preferred system."

Mr. Gordon had argued that an assurance given by the British Government at the end of the 1966 constitutional conference had led to a "legitimate expectation" that major constitutional reform would not take place without a conference. That expectation, he said, had been reinforced by practice since 1966.

But Justice Baker dismissed the argument saying that the statement, even if it did give rise to a legitimate expectation, was not applicable because the Order did not amount to major constitutional change.

And he accepted the argument, put forward by the British Government that the assurance did not relate to changes proposed by the Bermuda Government.

"It seems to me that the natural reading of paragraph 17 is that, first of all, the Secretary of State will not spring a surprise on the Bermuda Government and, secondly, if he considers his proposals to be changes of a major nature, he will call another representative conference," said Justice Baker.

"Bearing in mind that the present changes that are proposed emanate from Bermuda and not initially from Westminster, I am unpersuaded that this is a situation in which the assurance bites at all... Not only do the proposed changes emanate from the Bermuda Government but they emanate from a government that has been given a mandate for single member constituencies."

He added that past practice of having a constitutional conference before major changes gave no indication as to what should happen if proposals for change came from the Bermuda Government.

The full text of the judgment will be published in tomorrow's Royal Gazette.