May 29-30 2017
START DATE
END DATE
June 23 2017
MAHESH SANNAPAREDDY -v- THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BERMUDA POLICE SERVICE
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Supreme Court of Bermuda
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Lord Peter Goldsmith QC Mr Delroy Duncan
Lord Peter Goldsmith QC of counsel and Mr Delroy Duncan Trott & Duncan Limited
Mr Mark Diel and Mr Dantae Williams Marshall Diel & Myers Limited Mr Norman MacDonald and Mr Brian Myrie
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Applicant a medical practitioner was arrested on May 19 2016 under section 23(6) of PACE and his home was searched without a warrant under section 18 of PACE. The controversy centered on the legality of the arrest and search particularly whether it was necessary to consider alternatives to arrest when preconditions for a lawful arrest were met. The case highlighted the need for careful consideration of the discretion to arrest especially in the context of less intrusive means of achieving investigation objectives. The Applicant had not been formally questioned about the suspected offences forming the basis of his arrest
SUMMARY:
The arrest was challenged on the basis that arresting officers did not properly exercise their discretion to arrest leading to questions about the lawfulness of the search of the Applicant's home and the seizure of his property
OUTCOMES:
Plaintiff/Claimant
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
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
MAHESH SANNAPAREDDY -v- THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BERMUDA POLICE SERVICE
The Applicant a medical practitioner was arrested on May 19 2016 under section 23(6) of PACE and his home was searched without a warrant under section 18 of PACE. The controversy centered on the legality of the arrest and search particularly whether it was necessary to consider alternatives to arrest when preconditions for a lawful arrest were met. The case highlighted the need for careful consideration of the discretion to arrest especially in the context of less intrusive means of achieving investigation objectives. The Applicant had not been formally questioned about the suspected offences forming the basis of his arrest