Court of Appeal to deliver verdict in 22 cases |13 August 2014

In its second session for this year, the Seychelles’ Court of Appeal headed by Justice Francis MacGregor last week heard 22 cases – 10 criminal, 11 civil and one constitutional.

The Judges of the highest court of the land are this week deliberating on the cases heard and writing their judgments before rendering their verdicts tomorrow at 9am at the Palais de Justice on Ile du Port.

The other Judges of the Court of Appeal, which meets twice a year, are Justices Twomey, Fernando, Msoffe and Domah, with the last two coming in from abroad specially to sit on the Court. Any individual case must be heard by at least three of them.

Among the cases which have attracted most interest are those of Bernard Sullivan v/s the Attorney General and Rahim Jumaye v/s the Republic. Originally charged by the Magistrate’s Court after displaying some visual images and slogan on his vehicle, Bernard Sullivan made a referral to the Constitutional Court claiming that his right to free speech has been abused. He is now appealing against the dismissal order after it was ruled that his constitutional right had not been contravened.

On his part, Rahim Jumaye has been handed a life sentence by the Supreme Court for the murder of a Chinese immigrant worker on December 31, 2010 and 15 years for robbery on the same person.

Another interesting case is that of Excel Jean who is serving a long prison sentence for different counts of breaking and robbery and one count of criminal trespass. Even if his lawyer Nichol Gabriel has admitted that the list of charges for which his client has been convicted is “as long as the Bible”, the latter is pleading to reduce the years behind bars as he feels that the trial Judge did not make use of discretion as permitted by law to make some or all of the sentences run concurrently. Interestingly, Jean who was convicted by the Magistrate’s Court had already seen his sentence reduced by one year after he had appealed to the Supreme Court.

Mr Gabriel has also argued that only the law and aggravating or attenuating circumstances and not the current public outcry against insecurity should be a factor in determining sentencing.

Two other much awaited verdicts are those of the owner of the fishing boat ‘Charita’ George Michel and some crew members who are appealing against an order for remand, and Pascal Fostel who is serving ten years for sexual assault.  George Michel who was not on board, has been charged and remanded alongside his crew after the vessel was intercepted for carrying a controlled drug, firearms and turtle meat.

As for Fostel the length of time before disclosure of his case is an issue before the Court. He was charged in 2005 and convicted in 2012. In another similar case reviewed by the Court of Appeal, physically disabled Robert Passenji was charged for drug trafficking and convicted only six years later.

Meanwhile, another appellant before the Supreme Court, Yannick Savy, has seen his sentence reduced from sixteen to four years. He had previously been sentenced by the Magistrate’s Court on charges of robbery and escape from lawful custody.

In another appeal against conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court has ruled that the case of Lenny Henry be remitted to the Magistrate Court for retrial.
 Magistrate Brassel Adeline had sentenced the latter to fifteen years imprisonment after he had pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking into a building and committing felony. However, Judge Akiiki-Kiiza quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence, judging that the trial magistrate had not advised the appellant of the existence of Legal Aid and thus the possibility of being represented by a lawyer, occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

The judgment in this case states that once there is a plea of guilty, the convict has no right to appeal except against the legality of the sentence or miscarriage of justice. This can come in circumstances where the accused is not informed of his/her constitutional rights, forced to plead guilty or, does not understand the facts or accepts them through a third party.