A public hearing into allegations of racial discrimination against the Bank of Bermuda should go ahead, a judge ruled yesterday.

But the bank has vowed to appeal the decision which comes after years of legal wrangling between businessman Harold Darrell and the bank.

The bank had asked the court to quash a decision by the Community Affairs Minister to refer a racial discrimination complaint to a Board of Inquiry, arguing that the then-Minister, Randolph Horton, was biased, that the complaint was time barred and that it had been previously dismissed.

In her written ruling, Puisne justice Charles-Etta Simmons found that the compliant had been incorrectly dismissed in the first place and said that the Minister was correct in referring the case to a public hearing. But she criticised the Mr. Horton for communicating directly with Mr. Darrell over the matter.

?We strongly disagree with the decision of the judge this morning and we have instructed our lawyers to appeal it,? the bank said in a statement attributed to CEO Phillip Butterfield.

?This matter was determined by the relevant Minister in 2001 when he dismissed the request to refer it to a Board of Inquiry. The subsequent overruling of this decision by his predecessor has been made in circumstances, as Judge Charles-Etta Simmons clearly states in her decision this morning, where the Minister acted improperly.

?There are no grounds for this matter to be heard by a Board of Inquiry and we are very confident that the Court of Appeal will uphold our position. If the Bank were to be directed to appear before a Court of Inquiry, we would have no issue with that and would be perfectly prepared to defend the Bank?s actions.

?But any reference to a public hearing must be done fairly and be consistent with the rule of law and that has not happened in this case.?

The matter dates back to 2000 when Mr. Darrell filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission saying that the bank had racially discriminated against him by failing to act on the results of an internal bank investigation which found in his favour.

Mr. Darrell had months earlier initiated legal action alleging breach of confidentiality.

The bank declined to respond to the HRC complaint which was dismissed in 2001 under disputed circumstances and Mr. Darrell headed back to court and a consent order between Mr. Darrell and the Commission for the complaint to be reopened was agreed.

But the bank then applied to be a party to Mr. Darrell?s action and the court ruled that the bank?s directors should have been deemed the affected party but later reversed that decision saying the bank in fact was an affected party.

Meanwhile Mr. Darrell wrote to the Community Affairs Minister (Mr. Horton) asking that the discrimination complaint be referred to a Board of Inquiry.

Mr. Horton referred the matter to the Board of Inquiry in March 2002 and Mr. Darrell withdrew his judicial review application.

The bank responded to Mr. Horton?s decision with a judicial review application of their own which came to a head yesterday.

?In my opinion the principles of natural justice have not been infringed,? Mrs. Justice Simmons said in her ruling. ?It cannot be said that the Minister came to a decision that was unreasonable in the circumstances.?

She added that the bank will be given the opportunity to defend itself in the tribunal and that it would be up to the inquiry to decide if the complaint was time barred or frivolous.

Mrs. Justice Simmons said that the Minister?s role was an administrative one and not judicial.

She added that even if his role was quasi-judicial the Minister is the only one who can refer the matter to a board of inquiry and so ?acts as of necessity? and ?the usual jealously guarded rule against bias does not apply?.

?If I am not misguided in my determination, and the Minister performs a merely administrative function then I would argue that notwithstanding the contact between the Minister and H. Darrell, the scheme of the Act cannot be defeated by the contact, and the Minister is presumed to have exercised his discretion properly and within the bounds of the law.?

But Mrs. Justice Simmons said that the Minister ?ought not to have had direct communication with H. Darrell?.