27 April 2011
START DATE
END DATE
6-May-11
Curtis Mallory v Director of Public Prosecutions
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
Supreme Court of Bermuda
Criminal Law Constitutional Law
Richard Ground
Mr. C. Richardson
Ms. C. Clarke
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Plaintiff convicted of robbery and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence challenges mandatory minimum sentences for using a firearm as disproportionate
SUMMARY:
Whether sentencing provisions under Firearms Act 1973 violate constitutional rights to proportionate sentencing
OUTCOMES:
Court held section 54 of Criminal Code applies to offenses under Firearms Act 1973 mandatory minimum sentences must consider proportionality but did not directly address constitutional issues
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
Plaintiff
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