R v Lalande (2 of 2000) [2008] SCSC 29 (1 May 2008)

R v Lalande (2 of 2000) [2008] SCSC 29 (1 May 2008)

The court found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case covering the essential elements of the offence charged, and that the evidence had not been discredited to the extent that no reasonable tribunal could rely on it. Therefore, the defendant has a case to answer.

Citation
[2008] SCSC 29
Parties
Prosecution: Republic; Defendant: Ronny Lalande
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
1 May 2008
Case Number
2 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on No Case to Answer Submission
Outcome
motion for no case to answer dismissed; defendant to present defence
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Prima Facie Case, No Case to Answer, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Assault Prima Facie Case No Case to Answer Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Prosecution

Ronny Lalande

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on No Case to Answer Submission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the defendant for sexual assault
  2. 2 Whether the evidence is sufficient, reliable, and corroborated to require the defendant to present a defence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case covering the essential elements of the offence charged, and that the evidence had not been discredited to the extent that no reasonable tribunal could rely on it. Therefore, the defendant has a case to answer.

Court Disposition

motion for no case to answer dismissed; defendant to present defence

Orders

  • Defendant called upon to present his defence