R v Morel (CO 24/2011) [2017] SCSC 241 (16 March 2017)

R v Morel (CO 24/2011) [2017] SCSC 241 (16 March 2017)

The evidence established that a sudden unforeseeable mechanical failure caused the accident, negating criminal liability for manslaughter and dangerous driving. There was no evidence of overloading or unlicensed carriage of passengers. However, breathalyzer evidence established a prima facie case for driving with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 241
Parties
Prosecutor: The Republic; Accused: John Danny Morel
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
16 March 2017
Case Number
CO 24/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on No Case to Answer Submission After Prosecution Case
Outcome
Accused acquitted on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6; accused to make defence on count 5.
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Dangerous Driving, Driving Under the Influence, No Case to Answer Submission
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Manslaughter Dangerous Driving Driving Under the Influence No Case to Answer Submission

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Prosecutor

John Danny Morel

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on No Case to Answer Submission After Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case for manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, and related offences
  2. 2 Whether mechanical failure negated criminal liability
  3. 3 Whether evidence supports overloading or unlicensed carriage of passengers

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that a sudden unforeseeable mechanical failure caused the accident, negating criminal liability for manslaughter and dangerous driving. There was no evidence of overloading or unlicensed carriage of passengers. However, breathalyzer evidence established a prima facie case for driving with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6; accused to make defence on count 5.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.
  • Accused called to make defence on count 5.