Dr Anthony Richardson

HOMICIDE.

Dr Richardson was Junior Counsel for the defendant, over a period of approximately four weeks, where the defendant was charged with the offence of murder. The defendant caused the death of his ex-girlfriend by stabbing her over twenty times with a butcher knife, in broad daylight at a petrol station, in front of several witnesses. The defence put forward was one of not guilty by reason of insanity, relying on expert evidence.

SUPREME COURT/ CROWN COURT OF BERMUDA

SENTENCING/ FIRST IN TIME PRINCIPLE

Dr Richardson was counsel for the defendant who entered a plea of guilty to a charge of criminal damage (broken window and frame valued at 640.00 pounds). The Crown asserted that this guilty plea caused the defendant to be in breach of a previous Suspended Sentence Order and now liable for a term of imprisonment. Dr Richardson countered this assertion by inviting the court to look at the actual date each matter came before the courts and argued that there was no such breach as the suspended sentence matter was moved in front of the current criminal damage matter by the Crown. In other words, the Defendant cannot be punished because the Crown decided to prosecute it’s matters, related to the same defendant, out of sequence. The court accepted his arguments and refused to activate the suspended sentence matter. The court thanked Dr Richardson for preventing a miscarriage of justice.

HIGHBURY MAGISTRATES COURT

DRUGS/ POSSESSION AND CARE AND CONTROL

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant who was charged with being in possession of Class B drugs. The defendant's motor car, while parked in a bowling alley parking lot, was found to have with it small packets of Class B drugs shoved inside the small, unlocked door cover for the petrol tank. As the defendant’s motor car was parked in a public place, a bowling alley where patrons of the bowling alley freely walked between the parked motor cars (the parking lot had no walls, fencing or barriers restricting access), Dr Richardson successfully argued that anyone could have placed the Class B drugs inside the unlocked door cover for the petrol tank and, this being the case, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of the offences charged. The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

MAGISTRATES COURT OF BERMUDA

SERIOUS GANG VIOLENCE/ LACUNA IN THE LAW/ HABEAS CORPUS

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant who was charged with, along with others, unlawful wounding and being in possession of an offensive weapon (a machette). At first instance before the Magistrates Court, the presiding Magistrate declared that the Crown had failed to provide the necessary paperwork to allow the matter to be submitted to the Crown Court for trial and, in consequence, no longer had jurisdiction to detain the defendant and his co-defendants. Still, the Magistrate refused to Order the Defendant's release or to release him under Bail conditions. In 2005 Bermuda did not have statutory law or case law that would allow for the detention of a defendant under these circumstances. Dr Richardson determined this to be an obvious lacuna in the law/ that the defendant was being unlawfully detained. On the instruction of the defendant, Dr Richardson commenced an immediate habeas corpus application in the High Court for his immediate release. After several hours of legal argument by me, relying simultaneously on constitutional law and criminal law and procedure, the Court ruled in favour of the defendant and ordered his immediate release (the Crown later withdrew the unlawful wounding and possession of an offensive weapon charges during the arraignment session of the Court).

MAGISTRATES COURT OF BERMUDA, SUPREME COURT/ HIGH COURT OF BERMUDA

BANKING/ BANK NEGLIGENCE

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the claimant property developer and buyer, who alleged that the defendant Bank was negligent by failing to consider his bid for a property, valued over one million Bermuda Dollars/ US Dollars, due to an oversight by employees of the Bank. The defendant Bank sought to strike out the claimant's claim by arguing that this was a case where the legal doctrine of 'battle of the forms' applied. In response, he argued that the claimant needed first to be in the 'battle' in order for this legal doctrine to have effect. Rejecting Dr Richardson's arguments, the High Court found in favour of the defendant Bank. On appeal the Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of the Bank and accepted Dr Richardson’s arguments. This matter was settled out of court between the parties immediately after the appeal hearing. SUPREME COURT/ HIGH COURT OF BERMUDA AND COURT OF APPEAL OF BERMUDA

COMPANY LAW/ DIRECTORS LIABILITY/NO CASE

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant companies who sought to stop the efforts of the claimants to have them declared insolvent and, as a result, wound-up. The claimant alleged that the defendants owed them over $250,000.00 Bermuda Dollars/ US Dollars in unpaid service fees and accrued interest. The claimant also sought to enforce the penal notice attached to a Chambers Summons against one of the directors for failing to attend a Chambers Hearing in relation to the same matter. By methodically and successfully attacking the faulty financial statements, invoices, timesheets, and attendance notes, and supporting affidavits submitted by the claimant, he demonstrated that there was 'No Case' to answer by the defendants. The Court found in favour of the defendants. The Court also refused to enforce the penal provision against the director as the method of service was determined to be defective.

SUPREME COURT/ COMPANIES COURT OF BERMUDA

ADMIRALTY/ OIL POLLUTION/ NO CASE

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant Cruise-Ship being charged with oil pollution while berthed at the City of Hamilton pier. At the time of the alleged offence the Cruise-Ship was berthed, along with other ships and marine craft, at the City of Hamilton pier. Although an oily substance was clearly visible on sides of all the ships and marine craft, Marine Police determined that the Cruise-Ship was responsible for the alleged oil spill. At trial, no evidence was put forward by the Crown specifically linking the Cruise-Ship to the oil spill other than there being an oily substance on the Cruise-Ship’s sides. Dr Richardson put forward a 'No Case' submission arguing that the Crown failed to provide the necessary fingerprints from the Cruise Ship, such as test sample results from fuel carried by the ship/ its bunkers, specifically linking it to the oil spill. The court found there was 'No Case' to answer and acquitted the Cruise-Ship.

MAGISTRATES COURT BERMUDA

COURTS MARTIAL/ ABUSE OF PROCESS

Dr Richardson was Counsel for the defendant Private, in relation to a string of offences charged against him which included assaulting an Officer. After successfully obtaining a conviction against the Private for a previous matter, the Bermuda Regiment (Bermuda’s local Defence Force at the time was a mostly conscripted Force) sought in error to bring a duplicate prosecution of the Private some three plus years after the purported offences were said to have occurred. He argued that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The court found in favour of the defendant Private and thanked Dr Richardson for spotting the error and for preventing a miscarriage of justice.

MAGISTRATES COURT OF BERMUDA MILITARY JURISDICTION