R v Lesperance & Ors (CR 31/2019) [2020] SCSC 658 (1 December 2020)

R v Lesperance & Ors (CR 31/2019) [2020] SCSC 658 (1 December 2020)

The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient cogent evidence to establish the charges of conspiracy to import and traffic in controlled drugs. The evidence was tenuous, discredited, and did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an agreement or meeting of minds among the accused to commit the offences. Therefore, the accused have no case to answer.

Citation
[2020] SCSC 658
Parties
Prosecution: Republic; 1st Accused: Rowly Lesperance; 2nd Accused: Collin Henri; 3rd Accused: Lance Henri
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
1 December 2020
Case Number
CR 31/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Submission of no case to answer upheld; accused acquitted
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Drug Offences, Burden of Proof, Submission of No Case to Answer
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Conspiracy Drug Offences Burden of Proof Submission of No Case to Answer

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Prosecution

Rowly Lesperance

1st Accused

Collin Henri

2nd Accused

Lance Henri

3rd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of conspiracy to import and traffic in controlled drugs against the accused
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of agreement (meeting of minds) to commit the alleged offences
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution discharged the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient cogent evidence to establish the charges of conspiracy to import and traffic in controlled drugs. The evidence was tenuous, discredited, and did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an agreement or meeting of minds among the accused to commit the offences. Therefore, the accused have no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Submission of no case to answer upheld; accused acquitted

Orders

  • The case against the accused is dismissed.