Constitution.

And former Environment Minister the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto acted beyond her powers by imposing the ban.

The claims were made yesterday by British Queen's Counsel lawyer Mr. Alan Newman.

He accused Government of being "mean spirited and insensitive'' by slapping the restriction on fishermen.

And he said the ban deprived fishermen of their livelihood without compensation -- in clear breach of the Bermuda Constitution.

Mr. Newman spoke as Bermudian fisherman Mr. Danny Farias continued his Appeal Court fight against conviction for defying the ban.

Last year Mr. Farias lost a Supreme Court appeal against his 1991 Magistrates' Court conviction.

Magistrate the Wor. John Judge had fined Mr. Farias $2,000 for possessing and using fish pots.

The 60-year-old Devonshire fisherman was the first to be tried and convicted under the ban.

Respondent in the appeal is Mr. David Malpas, Government fisheries warden.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto was present for part of yesterday's hearing.

And Bermuda Industrial Union officials were also there, including president Mr. Ottiwell Simmons MP.

Yesterday the Appeal Court heard Government brought in the restriction on March 30 1990, claiming it was needed to save dwindling fish stocks.

Mr. Newman, quoting Mr. Farias' Magistrates' Court evidence, said the pot ban had a "devastating effect on the lives of all Bermudian fishermen''.

Fishermen were effectively told to roll up their lives and their heritage.

"The ban had the fishermen in a state of shock,'' said Mr. Newman.

He added the legislation which brought in the ban did not mention compensation.

There was not a word which gives fishermen the right for payment for loss of livelihood, he stressed.

Mr. Newman said "a wholly inadequate system'' of ex gratia payments -- those done as an act of grace without acceptance of liability -- was brought in.

Fishermen were not consulted over the amount they would be paid.

And he added: "It was a condition of payment that the fishermen had to hand in their fish pots.

"Because the payments were entirely ex gratia the fishermen could not challenge the woeful inadequacy of such payments in the courts.

"They had to go cap in hand to Government, surrender the tools of their trade, and seek meekly the amount Government was prepared to bestow on them.'' Mr. Newman said the ban sparked passion among Bermudians and massive publicity, and a national strike was threatened.

The Appeal Court judgement would be eagerly awaited by the Country.

Mr. Newman said the case was not one of Bermuda's fishermen versus environmentalists.

Mr. Farias was very concerned about the environment, said Mr. Newman.

Instead, the appeal case was directed at Government and the way it had acted.

"It's a challenge against the mean spirited and insensitive way Government chose to achieve its aims. It's a cry for justice by the fishermen driven by Government to despair and ruination.'' Mr. Newman said Bermuda's Constitution sought to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of people.

Depriving someone of his property without compensation breached the constitution.

Mr. Newman added under common law people were entitled to such compensation.

"It is common law if the Government destroys or deprives a person of his property he has the right to compensation.'' Mr. Newman later argued Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto had acted ultra vires -- beyond her powers -- by imposing the ban.

She did not have the legal authority to impose it.

The hearing continues today.

BIU president Mr. Ottiwell Simmons has urged fishermen to attend a meeting at 5 p.m. today at union headquarters.

The meeting will hear of a plan to set up a "fishermen's cooperative''. Under it, fishermen will have a common storage place for their catches and fuel.