Republic v Baker (5 of 2007) [2010] SCSC 60 (28 February 2010)

Republic v Baker (5 of 2007) [2010] SCSC 60 (28 February 2010)

The sentence of a fine imposed by the Magistrate’s court was within the law as section 27(2) of the Penal Code allows for a fine instead of imprisonment, and section 345 only sets the maximum sentence. There is no legal basis to interfere with the sentence as it does not offend the law.

Citation
[2010] SCSC 60
Parties
Applicant: The Republic; Respondent: David Baker
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
28 February 2010
Case Number
5 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment
Outcome
sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Possession of Forged Currency Notes, Sentencing, Revision of Sentence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Possession of Forged Currency Notes Sentencing Revision of Sentence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Applicant

David Baker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate’s court was wrong in law
  2. 2 Whether the offence under section 345 of the Penal Code is punishable by a fine
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the sentence imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of a fine imposed by the Magistrate’s court was within the law as section 27(2) of the Penal Code allows for a fine instead of imprisonment, and section 345 only sets the maximum sentence. There is no legal basis to interfere with the sentence as it does not offend the law.

Court Disposition

sentence affirmed

Orders

  • The sentence imposed by the Magistrate’s court is left to stand.