Moses v Republic (CN 87/2013) [2015] SCSC 191 (23 April 2015)

Moses v Republic (CN 87/2013) [2015] SCSC 191 (23 April 2015)

The trial magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by imposing a 16-year consecutive sentence, contrary to section 6(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the appellant was adequately informed of his right to counsel but not of the mandatory minimum sentences; sentences should run concurrently as offences arose from the same transaction; compensation is ordered for the unrecovered stolen property.

Citation
[2015] SCSC 191
Parties
Appellant: Alex Moses; Respondent: The Republic
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Case Number
CN 87/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Housebreaking, Stealing From a Dwelling House, Sentencing, Right to Counsel, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Compensation Orders
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Housebreaking Stealing From a Dwelling House Sentencing Right to Counsel Mandatory Minimum Sentences Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Compensation Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Moses

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was adequately informed of his right to counsel and the consequences of a guilty plea, especially regarding mandatory minimum sentences
  2. 2 Whether the trial magistrate had jurisdiction to impose consecutive sentences exceeding the statutory maximum
  3. 3 Whether sentences for offences committed in the same transaction should run concurrently

Ratio Decidendi

The trial magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by imposing a 16-year consecutive sentence, contrary to section 6(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the appellant was adequately informed of his right to counsel but not of the mandatory minimum sentences; sentences should run concurrently as offences arose from the same transaction; compensation is ordered for the unrecovered stolen property.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence of 16 years quashed and substituted with 8 years imprisonment on count one and 4 years on count two, to run concurrently (total 8 years)
  • Appellant to pay compensation of SR 38,995 to the victim within two years of release from prison