R v Vel (CV 4/2006) [2009] SCSC 150 (15 May 2009)

R v Vel (CV 4/2006) [2009] SCSC 150 (15 May 2009)

The Magistrate erred in law and principle by not imposing the minimum mandatory sentences under section 27A(1)(b) and by ordering all sentences to run concurrently from the same date, resulting in the accused serving only the longest sentence. The offences were not part of the same transaction, and after the first conviction, the accused was no longer a first offender. The correct approach was to impose a minimum of five years for each subsequent housebreaking conviction, with sentences on each file to run concurrently but sentences across files to be executed consecutively, subject to the court's direction.

Citation
[2009] SCSC 150
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Vel
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Case Number
CV 4/2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment
Outcome
Sentences in case files 581, 582, and 583 of 2006 set aside and replaced with five years on count I and short custodial sentences on count II in each file; sentences on each file to run concurrently; all sentences to be executed from 23 October 2006; three-year sentence in another case to run concurrently with the...
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Housebreaking, Stealing, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Minimum Mandatory Sentences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Housebreaking Stealing Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Minimum Mandatory Sentences

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Vel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in sentencing by ordering sentences to run concurrently and not applying the minimum mandatory sentences under section 27A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused should be treated as a first offender in all four cases
  3. 3 Proper interpretation and application of section 27A(1) and section 36 of the Penal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate erred in law and principle by not imposing the minimum mandatory sentences under section 27A(1)(b) and by ordering all sentences to run concurrently from the same date, resulting in the accused serving only the longest sentence. The offences were not part of the same transaction, and after the first conviction, the accused was no longer a first offender. The correct approach was to impose a minimum of five years for each subsequent housebreaking conviction, with sentences on each file to run concurrently but sentences across files to be executed consecutively, subject to the court's direction.

Court Disposition

Sentences in case files 581, 582, and 583 of 2006 set aside and replaced with five years on count I and short custodial sentences on count II in each file; sentences on each file to run concurrently; all sentences to be executed from 23 October 2006; three-year sentence in another case to run concurrently with the...

Orders

  • Sentences in case files 581, 582, and 583 of 2006 set aside and replaced as specified.
  • Sentences on each file to run concurrently.