12/20/2010
START DATE
END DATE
15-Dec-11
Jo-Ann Philpott v. Juan Wolffe & Adrian Cooke
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Supreme Court of Bermuda
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Richard Ground
Richard Horseman
Carrington Mahoney
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case concerned whether charges against the plaintiff for several offences were time-barred. The magistrate had ruled they were not based on when the DPP first became aware of the facts sufficient to justify proceedings. The main legal question was whether the knowledge of the police could be attributed to the DPP and if a certificate by someone other than the DPP indicating the date facts came to the DPP's notice complied with section 452(1) of the Criminal Code.
SUMMARY:
Whether police knowledge is attributable to the DPP and whether a certificate from someone other than the DPP meets the requirements of section 452(1) of the Criminal Code.
OUTCOMES:
The High Court ruled that the knowledge of the police cannot be attributed to the DPP and that a certificate must be personally signed by the DPP to comply with section 452(1). As such counts 1-6 against the plaintiff were time-barred.
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
Jo-Ann Philpott v. Juan Wolffe & Adrian Cooke
The case concerned whether charges against the plaintiff for several offences were time-barred. The magistrate had ruled they were not based on when the DPP first became aware of the facts sufficient to justify proceedings. The main legal question was whether the knowledge of the police could be attributed to the DPP and if a certificate by someone other than the DPP indicating the date facts came to the DPP's notice complied with section 452(1) of the Criminal Code.