R v Baker & Anor (CO 46/2011) [2017] SCSC 921 (16 September 2017)

R v Baker & Anor (CO 46/2011) [2017] SCSC 921 (16 September 2017)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statement of the 2nd accused was made voluntarily and without inducement; unresolved contradictions in prosecution evidence and credible allegations by the accused required the court to resolve doubt in favour of the accused.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 921
Parties
Prosecution: The Republic; Accused: David Baker; Accused: Dominico Banane
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
16 September 2017
Case Number
CO 46/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
statement of the 2nd accused ruled inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Voluntariness of Statements, Inducement, Constitutional Rights of Accused
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Confessions Voluntariness of Statements Inducement Constitutional Rights of Accused

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Prosecution

David Baker

Accused

Dominico Banane

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of the 2nd accused was made voluntarily
  2. 2 Whether inducement rendered the statement inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd accused was read his constitutional rights before making the statement

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statement of the 2nd accused was made voluntarily and without inducement; unresolved contradictions in prosecution evidence and credible allegations by the accused required the court to resolve doubt in favour of the accused.

Court Disposition

statement of the 2nd accused ruled inadmissible

Orders

  • the statement recorded from the 2nd accused is not admissible as evidence in this case