R v Tarani & Ors (CO 25/2016) [2017] SCSC 11 (17 January 2017)

R v Tarani & Ors (CO 25/2016) [2017] SCSC 11 (17 January 2017)

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was informed of his rights in a language he understood, did not request his lawyer, and voluntarily gave the statement. The interpreter's evidence was independent, cogent, and uncontradicted. The statement's recording in English did not prejudice the accused, as it was explained to him sentence by sentence and a Farsi translation was provided. No material contradictions were found in the prosecution's evidence.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 11
Parties
Prosecution: The Republic; First Accused: Imam Baksh Tarani; Second Accused: Hattam Mothashimina; Third Accused: Hossein Bazdar
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
17 January 2017
Case Number
CO 25/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Confession (voire Dire)
Outcome
Statement of the accused is admissible as evidence.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Right to Counsel, Voluntariness of Statements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Constitutional Law Admissibility of Confessions Right to Counsel Voluntariness of Statements

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Prosecution

Imam Baksh Tarani

First Accused

Hattam Mothashimina

Second Accused

Hossein Bazdar

Third Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Confession (voire Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of the first accused was given voluntarily and is admissible as evidence
  2. 2 Whether the accused's constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent were explained and observed
  3. 3 Whether the statement should have been recorded in Farsi instead of English

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was informed of his rights in a language he understood, did not request his lawyer, and voluntarily gave the statement. The interpreter's evidence was independent, cogent, and uncontradicted. The statement's recording in English did not prejudice the accused, as it was explained to him sentence by sentence and a Farsi translation was provided. No material contradictions were found in the prosecution's evidence.

Court Disposition

Statement of the accused is admissible as evidence.

Orders

  • The statement of the first accused is admitted as evidence in the case.