7/17/2017
START DATE
END DATE
19-Jul-17
THE QUEEN vs HARRY LIGHTBOURN
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Supreme Court of Bermuda
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Assistant Justice S. Subair Williams
K. King for the Director of Public Prosecutions
C. Richardson of Compass Law Chambers
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Harry Lightbourn was charged with four counts of drug offences related to the importation and possession (with intent to supply) of cannabis and cannabis resin. Defence applied for adjournment claiming the accused had not fully instructed him due to not being properly retained. The application was refused leading to the defence counsel withdrawing and the trial proceeding with the accused as a litigant in person. The Crown later requested an adjournment to serve disclosure documents ironically granted for the same duration initially requested by the defence.
SUMMARY:
Issues of case management and compliance with court directives for adjournment applications. The Defence's late adjournment application due to counsel's claim of not being properly retained and subsequent withdrawal. The Crown's adjournment request to serve disclosure documents to the unrepresented accused.
OUTCOMES:
Trial proceeded with the accused as a litigant in person but was later adjourned to allow the Crown to serve disclosure documents. A case management hearing was held to identify agreeable issues to avoid further delays.
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
neither directly as the court facilitated both sides under different circumstances
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 vs HARRY LIGHTBOURN
Harry Lightbourn was charged with four counts of drug offences related to the importation and possession (with intent to supply) of cannabis and cannabis resin. Defence applied for adjournment claiming the accused had not fully instructed him due to not being properly retained. The application was refused leading to the defence counsel withdrawing and the trial proceeding with the accused as a litigant in person. The Crown later requested an adjournment to serve disclosure documents ironically granted for the same duration initially requested by the defence.