Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans last night denied she was threatening judges when she warned in the House of Assembly: “Keep judges in a respectful mood or else.”

She made the comments when responding to criticism from Puisne Judge Philip Storr, who condemned her behaviour as “unacceptable” for not giving an opinion during a hearing into the BAS-Serco firefighters' dispute.

Bermuda Bar Association President David Kessaram said yesterday that the Attorney General's comments “sounded like a threat”, but Dame Lois said last night she had been trying to make the point that there must be mutual respect between the bench and lawyers.

And she insisted she had not been a party to the court proceedings - despite being named as a defendant and sending Solicitor General Wilhelm Bourne to sit through the whole case.

Lawyer Alan Dunch, who represented BAS-Serco in the dispute, said it was “difficult to comprehend” how Dame Lois could claim she was not party to the proceedings.

The row erupted when in a written judgement on May 2, Mr. Justice Storr said it was “unacceptable” for the Attorney General to instruct Solicitor General Wilhelm Bourne not to offer an opinion in the case between Bermuda Industrial Union, BAS-Serco, the Attorney General, and some individual firefighters over union representation at Bermuda International Airport.

There were constitutional matters raised and the Attorney General, as a party to the proceedings, had a duty to give her opinion to the courts, Mr. Justice Storr wrote.

In the House of Assembly on Friday, Dame Lois said: “What are you there for if you can't make up your mind about something so simple? Why take the people's money?”

She said Mr. Justice Storr should have written a letter to her about her not offering an opinion on the case rather than using his written judgement to make the point publicly. “To me it was unacceptable,” she said.

She added: “I want the Governor and everyone else listening to know. Keep judges in a respectful mood or else.”

Last night Dame Lois said: “If (Bar Association President) Mr. Kessaram wants to know what I meant it was obvious. I went on to a story about about disrespect from the bench.

“If the bench keeps being rude to the Bar (lawyers), ultimately they will answer back if they see someone is being unkind and rude.

“I went on to tell a story about a judge telling a lawyer, yours truly, you might as well go back to Africa. I reported him to the Chief Justice. You have got to show respect both ways.

“A UBP member (David Dodwell) asked what ‘or else' meant. You can't talk to me like that. It's not my fault if he is so thick he can't understand it. What other kind of threat can I give?

“People are getting desperate for news or looking for innuendo. It is a classic case of if there is constant abuse, someone will say something back to you.

“Lots of young lawyers are offended by magistrates and it cannot go on. Just because you get elevated to the bench you can't go around making people feel small or stupid and taking advantage of them.”

Mr. Kessaram, who said he was speaking in a personal capacity as he had not canvassed members of the Bar Association, said yesterday: “I hope it wasn't meant to be a threat, but it sounded like one. The unfortunate part is the part which sounded like a threat to a judge.

“I am sure it will be discussed at some point but whether the Bar Council decides to do anything remains to be seen.”

Mr. Dunch said yesterday: “I read in The Royal Gazette the report of her comments in the House in which she is quoted as saying she was not a party to the proceedings. If the quote is accurate, I find it difficult to comprehend.

“In constitutional proceedings she was specifically joined as a named defendant and her Solicitor General sat sat throughout proceedings in a wig and gown as party to the proceedings.

“There were three sets of proceedings that Judge Storr was dealing with and the third set referred to constitutional proceedings. The union, which commenced the proceedings, joined the Attorney General as a defendant in these proceedings, which it was duty bound to do.

“Because the union raised issues as to the interpretation of fundamental rights and freedoms in the constitution and rules of the Supreme Court, it was required that they join the Attorney General as a defendant to allow the Attorney General to be heard on the issue as to whether the Constitution had been breached.

“As a matter of fact, the Solicitor General and or a representative of the AG's chambers sat throughout the entirety of the proceedings and it was only when Judge Storr asked the Solicitor General what the position of the Attorney General was that the parties were informed that the Attorney General had instructed him (the Solicitor General) to take no position.

“That caused concern to Judge Storr and it caused concern to me, and as counsel for Serco, I addressed the court on my disappointment that the Attorney General was not giving the parties the benefit of her views on the constitutionality of a piece of legislation that had been brought into existence by her Government.”

When told about Mr. Dunch's criticisms, Dame Lois said: “I was not party to the proceedings and I have the right to elect whether to give an opinion.

“I don't want anything to do with what Alan Dunch says. What I said I explained and I am finished with it. After 50 years as a lawyer, I don't have to explain (anything) to anyone.”