R v Lagrenade & Ors (CO 53/2015) [2017] SCSC 269 (23 March 2017)

R v Lagrenade & Ors (CO 53/2015) [2017] SCSC 269 (23 March 2017)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused intended to cause grievous harm as required under section 219[a], but proved he unlawfully caused grievous harm under section 221. The second accused was found guilty of damaging property. There was insufficient identification evidence against the third, fourth, and fifth accused.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 269
Parties
Prosecution: The Republic; First Accused: Neddy Lagrenade; Second Accused: Savio Paul; Third Accused: Danio Lespoire; Fourth Accused: Roddy Lespoire; Fifth Accused: Hendrick Hoareau
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Case Number
CO 53/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Conviction and acquittal
Legal Topics
Grievous Harm, Damaging Property, Identification Evidence, Common Intention
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Grievous Harm Damaging Property Identification Evidence Common Intention

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Prosecution

Neddy Lagrenade

First Accused

Savio Paul

Second Accused

Danio Lespoire

Third Accused

Roddy Lespoire

Fourth Accused

Hendrick Hoareau

Fifth Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused caused grievous harm to the complainant with intent
  2. 2 Whether the accused acted with common intention
  3. 3 Whether the accused unlawfully damaged property

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first accused intended to cause grievous harm as required under section 219[a], but proved he unlawfully caused grievous harm under section 221. The second accused was found guilty of damaging property. There was insufficient identification evidence against the third, fourth, and fifth accused.

Court Disposition

Conviction and acquittal

Orders

  • First accused convicted of causing grievous harm contrary to section 221 of the Penal Code.
  • Second accused convicted of damaging property contrary to section 325[1] of the Penal Code.