R v Labodo (CO 52/2005) [2006] SCSC 97 (30 January 2006)

R v Labodo (CO 52/2005) [2006] SCSC 97 (30 January 2006)

Section 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Court to restrict a suspect's freedom of movement by impounding his passport during investigation, provided the restriction is reasonable, necessary, and not indefinite. The restriction is constitutional if prescribed by law and justified by the circumstances of the case.

Citation
[2006] SCSC 97
Parties
Prosecutor: Republic; Defendant: Labodo
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
30 January 2006
Case Number
CO 52/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Bail and Procedural Application
Outcome
Defence motion for dismissal refused; police granted further two months to complete investigation.
Legal Topics
Stealing by Servant, Bail Conditions, Freedom of Movement, Police Investigation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Stealing by Servant Bail Conditions Freedom of Movement Police Investigation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Prosecutor

Labodo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Bail and Procedural Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Court to restrict a suspect's freedom of movement by impounding his passport during investigation
  2. 2 Whether such restriction can be imposed for an indefinite period
  3. 3 Whether the police should be granted additional time to complete investigation

Ratio Decidendi

Section 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Court to restrict a suspect's freedom of movement by impounding his passport during investigation, provided the restriction is reasonable, necessary, and not indefinite. The restriction is constitutional if prescribed by law and justified by the circumstances of the case.

Court Disposition

Defence motion for dismissal refused; police granted further two months to complete investigation.

Orders

  • Proceedings adjourned for two months; case to be reviewed on 31 March 2006.
  • Suspect directed to appear in Court on 31 March 2006 at 9 am.