The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision to strike out allegations that the Bermuda Union of Teachers improperly suspended a member for speaking to The Royal Gazette.

The Reverend Leonard Santucci argued that he was denied due process and that the suspension cost him an opportunity to run for the position of BUT vice-president.

However, the BUT said the suspension had been carried out in accordance with the union’s constitution.

After Chief Justice Larry Mussenden found that Dr Santucci had breached the confidence of the union, he launched an appeal arguing that the disciplinary process was marred by unfairness and structural bias.

In a decision handed down last week, Court of Appeal president Ian Kawaley said the interim suspension “seemed vulnerable to attack” because it appeared to be imposed without express notice.

However, given the legal and factual context, the Supreme Court ruling was found to be “unimpeachable”.

Mr Justice Kawaley wrote: “The union members in general meeting were not a court or statutory tribunal and so the requirements for procedural fairness and impartiality were markedly different.

“The structural bias complaint was paper thin. A reviewing court is not the place to launch an initial challenge on the proportionality of a sentence, having been informed of the proposed suspension and not challenged it before the decision-making body.”

The judge wrote that while Dr Santucci had breached the union’s confidence, there was no evidence to suggest that he was guilty of anything more than an error of judgment while acting in the interests of what he considered to be the greater good.

He added: “In my judgment, the union’s decision ‘in the heat of battle’ to accuse the appellant of ‘treasonous’ behaviour, while understandable, was unjustified.

“The entire controversy may now be viewed as a ‘storm in a teacup’ in a time of Covid.”

The dispute stemmed from a decision to remove Mike Charles, a former general-secretary at the union, in June 2021.

Dr Santucci, the pastor at Vernon Temple African Methodist Episcopal Church in Southampton and the BUT representative for The Berkeley Institute at the time, initially brought concerns about irregularities in the way the union was being run to Nishanthi Bailey, who was the BUT president at the time, but did not receive a response.

He later gathered signatures from members to host a special general meeting dealing with the matter, and suggested that it could be held at The Berkeley Institute school field because of Covid-19 restrictions.

He was told the venue was not an option because the union’s constitution required such meetings to be held in private.

Dr Santucci was subsequently contacted by the The Royal Gazette about the issue and responded to questions.

He said he had felt it necessary to give answers because educators bore a responsibility to educate and the union’s communication network did not share dissenting views.

Dr Santucci was then suspended and Mr Charles’s successor, Anthony Wolffe, informed him in a letter that he had broken confidentiality by speaking to the media.

Dr Santucci was also told that, despite being nominated, he could no longer run for union vice-president in an upcoming election.

In the Supreme Court, Dr Santucci argued that he was unlawfully and unfairly suspended and that the union had maliciously rescinded his eligibility to run for office.

He further complained that the actions of the union’s executive committee contravened his rights to freedom of speech — but the union responded that the suspensions were properly carried out in accordance with its constitution.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court found in the BUT’s favour, with the Chief Justice ruling that the union’s actions had not warranted the breach of confidence and he was not satisfied that the union had disregarded Dr Santucci’s rights.

In the Court of Appeal, Dr Santucci argued that the disclosure was justified in the public interest and that he had been denied a fair hearing.

However, while the court agreed that Dr Santucci might have felt a valid justification for “going public”, the circumstances in hindsight did not support the breaches of confidence.

Mr Justice Kawaley wrote that the appellant “did not know with certainty, having had his July 1, 2021 letter seemingly ignored”, that the special general meeting would be heard in due course.

He added: “The union’s written response relied centrally on Covid-19 restrictions.

“The irregularities complained of were important matters involving the proper interpretation of the union’s constitution and the filing of accounts, but these were not matters obviously requiring a lightning-rapid response.”

The judge also said Dr Santucci had failed do deliver a “knockout blow” to the Chief Justice’s findings on the procedural fairness of the suspension and dismissed the appeal.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers