R v Prosper (CR 65/2010) [2017] SCSC 944 (26 October 2017)

R v Prosper (CR 65/2010) [2017] SCSC 944 (26 October 2017)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts as there was no admissible evidence of agreement to steal or of the accused's knowledge or participation in the alleged offences. The key prosecution witness's evidence was expunged due to lack of cross-examination, and the accused's statements did not amount to unequivocal admissions of guilt or establish the necessary mental element for the offences. The accused is acquitted on both counts.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 944
Parties
Prosecution: The Republic; Accused: Selby Prosper
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Case Number
CR 65/2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
Outcome
Acquittal
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Stealing by Servant, Retaining Stolen Property, Right to Fair Trial, Admissibility of Evidence, Cross Examination
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Conspiracy Stealing by Servant Retaining Stolen Property Right to Fair Trial Admissibility of Evidence Cross Examination

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

Parties

The Republic

Prosecution

Selby Prosper

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case against the accused for conspiracy to commit stealing by servant and retaining stolen money
  2. 2 Whether evidence of a deceased witness not cross-examined is admissible and what weight it should carry
  3. 3 Whether the accused had the requisite mens rea for the offences charged

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both counts as there was no admissible evidence of agreement to steal or of the accused's knowledge or participation in the alleged offences. The key prosecution witness's evidence was expunged due to lack of cross-examination, and the accused's statements did not amount to unequivocal admissions of guilt or establish the necessary mental element for the offences. The accused is acquitted on both counts.

Court Disposition

Acquittal

Orders

  • The accused is acquitted of both counts (conspiracy to commit stealing by servant and retaining stolen money).