R v Eulentin and Another (CO 31/2005) [2006] SCSC 82 (22 November 2006)

R v Eulentin and Another (CO 31/2005) [2006] SCSC 82 (22 November 2006)

The application for a hearing in absentia was rejected because the prosecution failed to provide sufficient and proper evidence, such as a formal report or affidavit, to prove that the second accused had absconded and that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him. The testimony presented was hearsay and did not satisfy the legal requirements.

Citation
[2006] SCSC 82
Parties
Prosecutor: The Republic; Accused: Roger Eulentin; Accused: Kevin Zelia
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
22 November 2006
Case Number
CO 31/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
application rejected
Legal Topics
Trial in Absentia, Remand, Robbery With Violence, Criminal Procedure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Trial in Absentia Remand Robbery With Violence Criminal Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Prosecutor

Roger Eulentin

Accused

Kevin Zelia

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial can proceed in the absence of the second accused (Kevin Zelia)
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a hearing in absentia under the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Code have been met

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a hearing in absentia was rejected because the prosecution failed to provide sufficient and proper evidence, such as a formal report or affidavit, to prove that the second accused had absconded and that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him. The testimony presented was hearsay and did not satisfy the legal requirements.

Court Disposition

application rejected

Orders

  • Application for hearing in absentia of the second accused is rejected.