Joseph V. R (SCA 4 of 1997) [1997] SCCA 55 (14 August 1997)
The aggravating circumstance of violence was not established beyond reasonable doubt; therefore, the conviction for robbery with violence was amended to theft, and the sentence was reduced accordingly.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] SCCA 55
- Parties
- Appellant: Tony Joseph; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- SCA 4 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction amended; sentence reduced
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Theft, Sentencing
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tony Joseph
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the aggravating circumstance of violence was established beyond reasonable doubt
- 2 Whether the conviction for robbery with violence was proper
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The aggravating circumstance of violence was not established beyond reasonable doubt; therefore, the conviction for robbery with violence was amended to theft, and the sentence was reduced accordingly.
Court Disposition
conviction amended; sentence reduced
Orders
- Conviction for robbery with violence amended to theft
- Sentence reduced from 6 years to 3 years imprisonment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL TONY JOSEPH APPELLANT Versus THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT (Before, H. Goburdhun (P), A. Silungwe (JA) & L. Venchard (JA) Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr F Elizabeth for the Appellant Mr R Kanakaratne for the Respondent JUDGMENT ~- ",,- (~r--- :\ \~\------------- ~»'\. \.'('.:';;;~ ... ,~..:::~C I . ) This Appellant was convicted of the offence of Robbery with violence and was sentenced to undergo 6 years' imprisonment. The appeal is against both conviction and sentence. The Memorandum of Appeal challenges the conviction on five grounds and the sentence on four grounds. Mr F Elizabeth who appeared for the appellant however did not press those grounds but preferred to adopt a practical approach which was highly commendable. He did not challenge the findings of fact of the trial judge but submitted that while it could be inferred from the evidence on record that the appellant had the common intention of committing the offence of theft and could be convicted of that offence, there was no evidence from which the aggravating circumstance of 'violence' could be inferred. He further submitted that, as the appellant had committed a lesser offence than that for which he was convicted, harsh, excessive and inappropriate. the sentence of 6 years' imprisonment was We have carefully perused the record and we agree with learned counsel that the aggravating circumstances of 'violence' have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. We accordingly , in accordance with section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 54), amend the conviction and find the appellant guilty of the offence of theft in breach of section 253 of the Penal Code punishable under section 264 of the Penal Code. We also agree that the sentence of 6 years' imprisonment was, in the circumstances, imprisonment for 3 years. - inappropriate 'and we accordingly reduce the sentence to one of H Goburdhun President A. Silungwe L. Venchard Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Dated this i. ~ ~ day of August, 1997