R v Bradburn (CO 21/2008) [2009] SCSC 40 (24 July 2009)

R v Bradburn (CO 21/2008) [2009] SCSC 40 (24 July 2009)

The defendant was found in possession of 5 grams of heroin, which by law gives rise to a presumption of trafficking. The prosecution's evidence was credible, consistent, and corroborated, and the chain of custody was intact. The defence failed to rebut the presumption or raise reasonable doubt. The prosecution proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
[2009] SCSC 40
Parties
Prosecution: Republic; Defendant: Roy Bradburn
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
24 July 2009
Case Number
CO 21/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
conviction
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Possession of Controlled Substances, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Presumption of Trafficking
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Drug Trafficking Possession of Controlled Substances Criminal Procedure Evidence Presumption of Trafficking

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Prosecution

Roy Bradburn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was in possession of a controlled drug
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was trafficking in a controlled drug by virtue of possession of more than 2 grams of heroin
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was found in possession of 5 grams of heroin, which by law gives rise to a presumption of trafficking. The prosecution's evidence was credible, consistent, and corroborated, and the chain of custody was intact. The defence failed to rebut the presumption or raise reasonable doubt. The prosecution proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

conviction

Orders

  • The defendant is convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to section 5 read with section 14(c) and 26(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 as amended by Act 14 of 1994 and punishable under section 29(1) read with the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
  • The defendant is convicted of possession of a controlled drug contrary to section 6(a) read with section 26(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 as amended by Act 14 of 1994 and punishable under section 29(1) read with the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act.