Folette v R (CN 17/2011) [2013] SCSC 58 (23 May 2013)

Folette v R (CN 17/2011) [2013] SCSC 58 (23 May 2013)

The Magistrate erred by restricting sentencing discretion based on a mandatory minimum not in force at the time of the offence, resulting in a harsh and excessive sentence. The offences arose from a single transaction and should attract concurrent sentences. There was insufficient evidence to establish the appellant was a juvenile, but mitigating factors including youth were considered.

Citation
[2013] SCSC 58
Parties
Appellant: Ricky Folette; Respondent: Republic
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Case Number
CN 17/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sentence varied
Legal Topics
Housebreaking, Stealing From Dwelling House, Sentencing Discretion, Minimum Mandatory Sentence, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Juvenile Offenders
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Housebreaking Stealing From Dwelling House Sentencing Discretion Minimum Mandatory Sentence Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Juvenile Offenders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ricky Folette

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate erred by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence for an offence committed before the law required it
  2. 2 Whether the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences was harsh and excessive
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate failed to consider the appellant's age and mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate erred by restricting sentencing discretion based on a mandatory minimum not in force at the time of the offence, resulting in a harsh and excessive sentence. The offences arose from a single transaction and should attract concurrent sentences. There was insufficient evidence to establish the appellant was a juvenile, but mitigating factors including youth were considered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence varied

Orders

  • Sentence of six years imprisonment set aside and replaced with three years imprisonment for housebreaking
  • Sentence of one year imprisonment for stealing from dwelling house to run concurrently with the three years imprisonment