11/26/2018
START DATE
END DATE
3-Dec-18
The Queen v. W.F.S.
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
Supreme Court of Bermuda
Criminal Law
Juan P. Wolffe
Maria Sofianos
Elizabeth Christopher
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused was charged with sexual offences against a child under 14 occurring between September 2016 and June 2017. The prosecution applied for the child to testify via video link or behind a screen under Section 542A which the defense opposed arguing insufficient evidence for such an order.
SUMMARY:
Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence for a Section 542A order allowing the child to testify outside the courtroom or behind a screen
OUTCOMES:
The court dismissed the prosecution's application for a Section 542A order due to lack of oral testimony supporting the need for such measures.
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 accused was charged with sexual offences against a child under 14 occurring between September 2016 and June 2017. The prosecution applied for the child to testify via video link or behind a screen under Section 542A which the defense opposed arguing insufficient evidence for such an order.