R v Georges (CO 26/1998) [1998] SCSC 13 (3 September 1998)

R v Georges (CO 26/1998) [1998] SCSC 13 (3 September 1998)

The court held that the defence's motion to adjourn proceedings for the purpose of directly invoking the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction was misconceived, as no application for disclosure had been made to the trial court under the Criminal Procedure Code. However, given the constitutional questions raised and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] SCSC 13
Parties
Prosecution: Republic; Accused: Bernard Georges
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
3 September 1998
Case Number
CO 26/1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Procedural Motions
Outcome
Referral to Constitutional Court under article 46(7) for determination of constitutional questions; bail extended on same conditions.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Right to Fair Trial, Adjournment, Constitutional Referral
Source Language
english
Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Disclosure of Evidence Right to Fair Trial Adjournment Constitutional Referral

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Prosecution

Bernard Georges

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Procedural Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution is obliged to furnish a list of witnesses, their statements, and the prosecution docket to the accused in a summary trial before the Supreme Court under the Criminal Procedure Code and Constitution
  2. 2 Whether failure to furnish such documents amounts to a contravention of articles 19 and 28 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defence's motion to adjourn proceedings for the purpose of directly invoking the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction was misconceived, as no application for disclosure had been made to the trial court under the Criminal Procedure Code. However, given the constitutional questions raised and the prosecution's lack of objection, the court referred the matter to the Constitutional Court under article 46(7) of the Constitution for determination of whether the prosecution is obliged to disclose witness lists and statements in summary trials and whether failure to do so contravenes constitutional rights.

Court Disposition

Referral to Constitutional Court under article 46(7) for determination of constitutional questions; bail extended on same conditions.

Orders

  • Registrar to list referral for mention before the Constitutional Court with notice to prosecution and defence.
  • Bail of the accused extended on same conditions.