An airport Customs officer yesterday lost a tribunal hearing in which he claimed he was deliberately overlooked for a promotion because of his race and place of birth.

Black Bermudian Troy Caines' case went to a Human Rights Board of Inquiry after he alleged his constitutional rights were breached when a white Canadian woman, Joan Crown, was appointed Assistant Collector of Customs in 2002.

But the Board yesterday ruled that there had been no discrimination, and threw out the complaint against Collector of Customs Winniefred Fostine-DeSilva, the Public Service Commission (PSC), the Department of Human Resources and the Minister of Finance.

Kim White, chairman of the inquiry panel, ruled: "The panel, after considering all of the evidence and listening to all the witnesses before it, find as a fact that there has been no discrimination against the complainant."

Mr. Caines had been seeking damages of $790,000 in salary compensation.

The case arose after the senior Customs officer, who entered the service in 1983, was unsuccessful in an application for Assistant Collector of Customs. He claimed he had been "deliberately overlooked" for the post as a result of his race and place of origin in favour of foreign applicants.

But Mr. White said that there was no evidence put before the panel of any discriminatory acts by the Department of Human Affairs or the Minister of Finance. "The panel can only speculate why they were included in the complaint at all," he said.

The panel also found that Mrs. Fostine-DeSilva has no power of promotion within the Customs service, although she is able to make recommendations to the PSC.

Mr. White said: "There is no evidence before us that shows that Mrs. Fostine-DeSilva in either her personal capacity or as Collector of Customs "allowed, encouraged, supported or discriminated" against the complainant.

And he added that there was no evidence to show that the PSC, in not recommending Mr. Caines for the post in question, did so in a way that breached his rights. "None of these respondents had the ability or responsibility for promoting Mr. Caines. They were not his employer and could only make recommendations."

Concluding, Mr. White stated that the way promotions were conducted and the state of labour relations at Customs at the time of the complaint, together with errors in advertising the post in question, would and did contribute to Mr. Caines' belief that he was being discriminated against. However, he added: "But it is the finding of this panel that it is a belief without the support of evidence."

The panel said it was clear from evidence of witnesses that during 2002 and 2003 staff and management at Customs "did not enjoy good labour relations", with a major issue being senior appointments. An independent inquiry looked at troubles in the service. As a result a memorandum of understanding for promotion of Customs officers was agreed and started in November 2004. The panel also said that there was no evidence that Mr. Caines was the victim of retaliation against him for making his complaint to the Human Rights Commission, when he was not subsequently offered the position of Principal Customs Officer in 2003. During the hearing, Governor Sir John Vereker issued an order meaning no questions could be put to the secretary of the PSC relating to the appointment of Ms Crown.

The panel yesterday said that this had a "chilling effect" on the hearing, with the complainant denied access to evidence he thought could support his case, and the respondents also barred access to material that they thought could aid their defence.

The panel said this was an "extraordinary exercise" of the Governor's power, but said its restricted powers compared to the Supreme Court meant it could not rule if it was appropriate for such a move to have been made.

Melvin Douglas of the Attorney General's chambers, representing the respondents, declined to comment after leaving yesterday's hearing.

Mark Diel, for Mr. Caines, said he was "extremely disappointed" with the ruling.

He said the panel had not tackled the issue of qualifications needed for the job Ms Crown secured. He added that the Governor's decision meant that documents that could have proved Mr. Caines' case were not made available.