1/29/2019
START DATE
END DATE
14-Feb-19
The Queen v. W.F.S.
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
Supreme Court of Bermuda
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
C. Greaves. J.
Ms. Sofianos
Ms. Christopher
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The defendant related to the complainant's family charged with sexual offenses against her when she was about 11 years old from September 2016 to June 2017. Complainant lived with her great grandmother following her mother's death and reported being fearful of encountering the defendant.
SUMMARY:
The necessity and appropriateness of the complainant testifying behind a screen or via video link due to her age emotional state and the nature of the allegations against the defendant.
OUTCOMES:
Application for special measures for the complainant to testify behind a screen or by video was denied. The evidence presented did not meet the required standard for such measures under Section 524A of the Criminal Code Act.
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
Defendant
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies
The Queen v. W.F.S.
The defendant related to the complainant's family charged with sexual offenses against her when she was about 11 years old from September 2016 to June 2017. Complainant lived with her great grandmother following her mother's death and reported being fearful of encountering the defendant.