BUSINESSMAN Harold Darrell was treated unfairly by the Bank of Bermuda, according to sworn testimony from witnesses, who also suggested Government collusion played into plans to bring him down.Central to Mr. Darrell’s case was his claim that the bank undermined his business dealings on two occasions by revealing that he had an outstanding loan with the bank — a claim that the bank has strenuously denied.

In his submission to the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Darrell stated that the Bermuda Broadcasting Company held back on investing in his company after learning about his debt.

Mr. Darrell wrote: “Rick [Richardson, CEO of BBC] then told me that [board chairman] Mr. [Fernance] Perry wanted to hold off from doing the deal right now.

“When I asked why he told me that while he did not have the full story, it had something to do with a personal loan at the bank and that Mr. Perry had been advised to hold off from doing the deal.”

Mr. Darrell added that, a few months later, “I ran into Mrs. Dale Young, a good friend of mine, and was informed by her that she had heard rumours concerning my personal loan at the bank”.

“She also asked me if I knew of a Mr. Bruce Pottle, the bank’s then general manager of Commercial Banking, because this guy, Mr. Pottle, intended on taking me out. She told me to take her word for it because Pottle is a bastard and he is after me.”

The allegation was later supported by Bank of Bermuda Special Loans officer Sharon Kirby. In an affidavit given in October 2004, Ms Kirby said: “Sometime in early 1996 my then-boss, Mr. Bruce Pottle informed me that HJD’s (Harold Darrell’s) ‘ass is grass as soon as Alan Richardson goes off to Hong Kong and that you should start working his accounts’>”

Ms Kirby went on: “Following these instructions I began to peruse HJD’s file and it became apparent that a property appraisal would be required. Intending to be as discreet as possible and trying (so I thought) not to highlight HJD’s predicament I made contact with then a close real estate friend, one I thought I could trust. This individual knew the nature of my job and how I worked.

“With this in mind I asked my real estate friend if they knew of a particular property located on Cedar Avenue because I wanted them to give a ‘drive-by opinion’ of its value. Knowing the property in question, my so-called trusted friend immediately acknowledged that they knew HJD and indeed asked me to help him.

“It was at this time that I revealed confidential information concerning HJD’s personal banking affairs as it pertains to his house and Bruce Pottle’s intentions to put the screws on him, following Mr. Richardson’s departure to Hong Kong. For the record, I accept that revealing HJD’s personal banking details to my then real estate friend was contrary to the bank’s policy and a breach of confidentiality. Furthermore, the intentions expressed by Bruce Pottle were his, not mine.”

Ms Kirby said she was later questioned by bank executive Barry Shailer after he receivB> a complaint from Mr. Darrell that the businessman’s details had been leaked to a third party. Trusting that her real estate friend was not the source of the leak, Ms Kirby at first denied that she had spoken to anybody outside the bank about Mr. Darrell’s loan.

But six months later she met with Mr. Darrell and was “shocked to learn that it was my real estate friend who had disclosed facts directly to him”.

“Following the meeting and right up to my resignation in June 2000, no one in the bank or outside the bank ever approached or questioned me further concerning HJD’s case, despite the media coverage and the bank’s investigations and the Human Rights Commission’s involvement.

“I have filed this affidavit at this time because I was both approached and encouraged to by another mutual friend in an effort to bring some closure to HJD’s struggle with the bank and because I know the part I played in his affairs and what it has cost him personally, financially socially and emotionally. But primarily I filed this affidavit because it is the right thing to do.”

Bermuda Broadcasting boss Mr. Richardson also testified on Mr. Darrell’s behalf, and implied that the bank did breach Mr. Darrell’s confidence. In a December 1999 testimony, Mr. Richardson said that his company was initially willing to pay $3.2 million for a 30 per cent stake in Hardell Cable Television, but that company chairman Fernance Perry decided to pull out at the last moment.

“I told Mr. Perry that Mr. Darrell wanted to move ahead with the project and that if we did not do something we would be left out,” Mr. Richardson testified.

“I told Fernance Perry that I knew Mr. Darrell had support for financing in the Bank of Bermuda and had sufficient assets to put forward to ensure he would get support from the bank. This was another reason not to wait until Harold Darrell was forced to go ahead with another alternative and eliminate our interest.

“At that point Mr. Perry told me to hold on and not be too quick to move on this because he did not think Harold Darrell would get the money he was looking for from the bank.

“Mr. Perry told me that, from what he understood, Mr. Darrell would have a problem. Mr. Perry was very sure that Mr. Darrell would have major problems at the Bank of Bermuda. Mr. Perry almost guaranteed that Harold Darrell would not get support from the Bank of Bermuda.

“Fernance Perry also told me that someone in the Bank of Bermuda was indicating that Mr. Darrell was going to have a tough time and advised Mr. Perry to wait. It was clear from my discussion with Mr. Perry that he had inside information and did not think it appropriate to move on the offer to buy into HCTV.”

Several witnesses gave evidence suggesting that the bank was working with Government to have Mr. Darrell’s complaint stalled.

Roger Russell recounted a conversation he observed between bank director Clarence James and David Dunkley — an acquaintance of Mr. Darrell’s — during a meeting in April 2001.

He said: “At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Dunkley began to tease Dr. James in a jovial manner concerning Mr. Harold Darrell, stating that Mr. Darrell was not going to stop pursuing Dr. James, the Bank of Bermuda and the other directors regarding his human rights issue.

“I then heard Dr. James state that Mr. Darrell was stupid for taking on the bank’s directors and the Government, especially [Human Affairs Minister] Terry Lister. Dr. James then burst out laughing. Mr. Dunkley responded that ‘they would see’.

“Mr. Dunkley then continued to inform Dr. James that when he and the other directors were brought before the Human Rights Commission’s Board of Inquiry and found guilty, he and the other directors would be personally liable to pay Mr. Darrell damages.

“Dr. James burst out laughing again and responded, ‘Lister has assured the Board of Directors that Darrell’s complaint is going nowhere’.”

Another witness who claimed that Minister Lister erroneously interfered in the matter was former HRC executive officer Neville Darrell.

In a January 2001 affidavit, Mr. Darrell (no relation to Harold Darrell) said he became aware of Harold Darrell’s complaint in October 2000. He said he put the details of the complaint before the HRC’s general committee which “found that the complaint was legitimate”.

In November Mr. Darrell sent a copy of Mr. Darrell’s complaint to the bank and shortly after received a telephone call from senior bank executive Philip Butterfield.

According to Mr. Darrell, Mr. Butterfield — the brother of Premier Ewart Brown and now the bank’s CEO — asked if the HRC would “delay” Harold Darrell’s complaint until a civil lawsuit between the two parties had gone through the courts.

“I told Mr. Butterfield that the Commission did not necessarily have to yield a human rights complaint to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Darrell testified.

“Mr. Butterfield further stated that Mr. Darrell’s complaint was time barred and I disagreed.”

Several days later, Mr. Darrell received notification from the bank that it would not participate in any investigation by the HRC into Harold Darrell’s complaint.

As a result, Mr. Darrell authorised that the case be referred to Minister Lister “in the usual and custom form at this point and the request be made for an appointment of a Board of Inquiry to pursue the complaint further”.

According to Mr. Darrell’s statement, on December 19, 2000, he was called to a meeting with Mr. Lister and Human Affairs director Kenneth Dill, where he explained that, because he had met with the complainant and there appeared to be genuine grounds for complaint, the HRC needed to investigate the matter.

“The Minister challenged my analysis of the human rights as being poor judgement on my part,” Mr. Darrell said.

“The Minister stated to me that there would be times during my tenure at the Human Rights Commission that I would have to ‘tear down the temple’ and that on other occasions I would do nothing.

“The meeting between the Minister, the director of Human Affairs and myself was very animated and on a few occasions the Minister told me to be quiet and listen to him.

“At the conclusion of the meeting, the Minister, while playing with a rubber band in his hands, announced to me that he was not going to send the complaint to a Board of Inquiry and that the Commission was going to dismiss it.

“I am clear that the only basis for the Minister not proceeding forward with the appointment of a Board of Inquiry was on the basis of the complainant, Mr. Darrell himself. This act of discrimination on the part of the Minister immediately upset me and placed me in a toxic, poisoned work environment with the Minister.

“If I was to follow the direction of the Minister in being more aware of ‘who’ is seeking the assistance of the HRC as opposed to weighing the merits on the individual’s complaint, I would place myself in direct opposition to the very statute that I was committed to upholding.”

Believing that Mr. Lister’s recommendation “was clearly a statement against the public interest”, Mr. Darrell resigned shortly after the confrontation in a bid to “restore any faith and trust in the Commission”.

He concluded: “During the December 19 meeting when the Minister chided me for placing too much significance on Mr. Darrell’s human rights complaint he asked me ‘Do you know who Harold Darrell is?’

“I will never forget my answer to the Minister’s question — ‘Harold Darrell is part of the human family and has been declared through international conventions and indeed our own Constitution to possess inalienable rights, rights that we call ‘human rights’. Therefore, to diminish any citizen because of who you believe him to be is to diminish ourselves’.”

Human Affairs director Kenneth Dill later dismissed Mr. Darrell’s version of events.

However, they were supported last week by former HRC officer David Wilson, who told this newspaper that senior ranking civil servants interfered in the Harold Darrell case.

Mr. Wilson, who claims he was eventually sacked from the Commission on trumped-up incompetence charges, claimed both he and Neville Darrell were forced out of office “for upholding the law with respect to how the Harold Darrell matter was handled.

“My demise was because I stood my ground and resisted intrusions into my office, which enjoys independence in cases.”

‘Lister has assured board of director Darrell’s complaint is going nowhere’