R v Lesperance (CN 53.2013) [2014] SCSC 350 (26 September 2014)

R v Lesperance (CN 53.2013) [2014] SCSC 350 (26 September 2014)

The Appellant's statement was retracted, not repudiated, and was corroborated by independent evidence including witness testimony and fingerprint evidence. The fingerprint evidence was reliable and not materially contradictory. The sentences imposed were within statutory limits and appropriate given the seriousness of the offences. The amendment mandating consecutive sentences did not apply as the offence occurred before its commencement.

Citation
[2014] SCSC 350
Parties
Appellant: Davis Lesperance; Respondent: The Republic
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
26 September 2014
Case Number
CN 53.2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Criminal Trespass, Burglary, Stealing From Dwelling House, Admissibility of Confessions, Corroboration of Evidence, Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Trespass Burglary Stealing From Dwelling House Admissibility of Confessions Corroboration of Evidence Sentencing

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davis Lesperance

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was based on a repudiated or retracted statement and if corroboration was required
  2. 2 Whether the conviction was based on conflicting fingerprint evidence
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's statement was retracted, not repudiated, and was corroborated by independent evidence including witness testimony and fingerprint evidence. The fingerprint evidence was reliable and not materially contradictory. The sentences imposed were within statutory limits and appropriate given the seriousness of the offences. The amendment mandating consecutive sentences did not apply as the offence occurred before its commencement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.