Both sides of the legal battle over conscription declared themselves confident of victory as the case wrapped up in London.

Five Privy Council law lords are now deliberating whether to back Bermudians Against the Draft who say the policy is a breach of human rights or the Government.

They set no date for the delivery of their judgment, which could take several months.

However, leaving court yesterday, Attorney General Kim Wilson said she was confident they would uphold previous rulings by Bermuda's courts in favour of Government.

"I don't want to jinx things, but I'm smiling," she remarked after Government lawyer Rabinder Singh QC closed his case.

"We're very, very comfortable that they will uphold the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judgments."

However, Larry Marshall Sr. of Bermudians Against the Draft (B.A.D.) believes their case won favour from the Privy Council which is the highest court of appeal for the Overseas Territories.

B.A.D. consists of 14 men contesting their conscription into the Regiment. They hope to get mandatory military service abolished for good.

Mr. Marshall, who founded the campaign, said: "I'm still feeling cautiously optimistic. Our attorneys put forward a very strong case, now it's just a question of whether or not the Privy Council accepts the arguments. I think we stand a very good chance."

B.A.D.'s Bermuda-based lawyer Delroy Duncan said two of the law lords Lord Brown and Lord Saville "appeared unsympathetic to the arguments advanced by B.A.D.".

However, he noted that the only female member of the panel, Lady Hale, "openly declared that she was in favour of B.A.D.'s discrimination argument provided it could properly be read with the Bermuda Human Rights Act".

Mr. Duncan said the court appeared to have rejected two of B.A.D.'s subsidiary arguments and will now determine the appeal based on three points.

The British-based lawyer for B.A.D., Jonathan Crow QC, argued the first of those on Monday. He claimed that conscription is illegal under the Human Rights Act, on the basis of gender discrimination. He pointed out that only young males are made to serve in such a manner. Both sexes can join the Regiment as volunteers, but only a handful do so each year.

Government insists that conscription is the only way the Regiment can fulfil its functions.

Answering that point yesterday, Mr. Singh said B.A.D.'s argument does not fall within the "true meaning" of the Human Rights Act, even on a "benevolent" reading of it.

He said there is no evidence the Regiment refuses to recruit or employ women, so it does not discriminate against them.

And he said B.A.D.'s argument that it discriminates against men by subjecting them to conscription would require reading things into the Human Rights Act that are not there.

However, Lady Hale told Mr. Singh it was "not very difficult" to say that the policy treats men less favourably then women.

She revealed that she was "speaking as someone who instinctively feels that this is discrimination and it should not be allowed".

The second point Mr. Crow argued on Monday is that Government is obligated to take "reasonable steps" to recruit volunteers of both sexes before resorting to conscription.

He suggested this could be achieved through recruitment campaigns and offering a more attractive package of benefits.

However, Mr. Singh said Government need only show that there are not enough volunteers it does not have to address the reasons why.

"This is not about whether it could have been done in a nicer way or a better way," he said of the current recruitment process.

Mr. Crow also criticised the way Government failed to answer letters from B.A.D. inquiring about issues such as how big the Regiment needs to be, and what efforts have been made to recruit volunteers.

He argued that a public body, which is taking liberty away, has a duty to be candid and provide the court with all relevant information.

However, Mr. Singh said B.A.D. asked the questions before the court process got underway, and most were answered once it started. He rejected the idea that failing to reply to questions meant no consideration had been given to the issues.

The court did not ask to hear Mr. Singh's response to two further points made by B.A.D., which it no longer appears to be considering. The first was that Regiment call-up notices were legally void for technical reasons relating to the way they were signed. The other was that Government should have set a specific quota for the number of women to be recruited to the Regiment.

After the final submissions, president of the court Lord Phillips said it would take time to consider the issues before announcing the outcome.

Mr. Marshall Sr. said he'd been advised by Mr. Crow that this could take between two and six months.