R v Lesperance & Ors (Ruling 2) (CO 51/2013) [2017] SCSC 33 (22 January 2017)

R v Lesperance & Ors (Ruling 2) (CO 51/2013) [2017] SCSC 33 (22 January 2017)

The court found that A4 was properly cautioned, informed of his right to counsel, and voluntarily made the statement. The minor inconsistency regarding the number of cautions was not material. There was no evidence A4 requested a specific attorney. The prosecution proved compliance with legal requirements beyond reasonable doubt, making the statement admissible.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 33
Parties
Prosecution: The Republic; Accused: Hansel Lesperance & Ors; Accused: 2nd Accused; Accused: 3rd Accused; Accused: 4th Accused (A4); Accused: 5th Accused
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
22 January 2017
Case Number
CO 51/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence (voir Dire)
Outcome
objection overruled; statement admitted
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confession, Right to Counsel, Voluntariness of Statements, Judges Rules
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Confession Right to Counsel Voluntariness of Statements Judges Rules

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Prosecution

Hansel Lesperance & Ors

Accused

2nd Accused

Accused

3rd Accused

Accused

4th Accused (A4)

Accused

5th Accused

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether A4's charge and caution statement is admissible in evidence
  2. 2 Whether A4 was denied legal counsel
  3. 3 Whether the statement was voluntary and in compliance with the law

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that A4 was properly cautioned, informed of his right to counsel, and voluntarily made the statement. The minor inconsistency regarding the number of cautions was not material. There was no evidence A4 requested a specific attorney. The prosecution proved compliance with legal requirements beyond reasonable doubt, making the statement admissible.

Court Disposition

objection overruled; statement admitted

Orders

  • A4's charge and caution statement is admitted in evidence for the prosecution