Seychelles Case Law

Sopha v R (SCA 27 of 2010)

Sopha v R (SCA 27 of 2010) [2012] SCCA 11 (31 August 2012)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 27 of 2010

The appellant’s own testimony and the evidence established that he participated in the unlawful acts that caused the death of the deceased, with knowledge that such acts would probably cause death or grievous harm. The trial judge’s misdirection did not occasion a miscarriage of justice as the evidence was overwhelming for a properly directed jury to convict for murder under section 23 of the Penal Code.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Manslaughter
• Common intention
• Malice aforethought
• Intoxication
• Circumstantial evidence

Read case analysis

Kilindo and Payet v R (SCA 4 of 2010)

Kilindo and Payet v R (SCA 4 of 2010) [2011] SCCA 20 (2 September 2011)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 4 of 2010

The evidence established that both appellants participated in acts leading to the victim's death, satisfying the requirements for murder under the Penal Code, including common intention and malice aforethought. The trial judge correctly admitted the confessions and properly directed the jury. There was no basis for a manslaughter conviction or for interfering with the verdicts.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Common intention
• Joint enterprise
• Mens rea
• Malice aforethought
• Admissibility of confessions

Read case analysis

Kilindo and Payet v R (SCA 11 of 2009)

Kilindo and Payet v R (SCA 11 of 2009) [2011] SCCA 19 (2 September 2011)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 11 of 2009

The evidence established both appellants' active participation in the acts leading to the victim's death, satisfying the requirements of actus reus and mens rea for murder under Seychelles law. The trial judge properly directed the jury on malice aforethought and common intention, and the confessions were rightly admitted. The facts did not warrant a manslaughter alternative. Both appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Common intention
• Joint enterprise
• Mens rea
• Actus reus
• Admissibility of confessions

Read case analysis

R v Anna (CO 41/2006)

R v Anna (CO 41/2006) [2007] SCSC 129 (3 July 2007)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CO 41/2006

The Supreme Court summed up a murder trial for the jury, explaining malice aforethought, burden of proof, and corroboration of a retracted confession.

• Murder
• Burden of proof
• Standard of proof
• Malice aforethought
• Confession
• Corroboration

Read case analysis

Republic v Dine (64 of 2005)

Republic v Dine (64 of 2005) [2006] SCSC 2 (15 January 2006)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

64 of 2005

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the deceased, but failed to prove malice aforethought. The accused is therefore not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter under Section 192 of the Penal Code.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Manslaughter
• Malice aforethought
• Culpable negligence

Read case analysis

Daniel Hoareau v The Republic (SCA 4 of 1989)

Daniel Hoareau v The Republic (SCA 4 of 1989) [1989] SCCA 13 (25 October 1989)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 4 of 1989

The grounds of appeal fail as the procedural and substantive directions given by the Presiding Judge did not materially affect the verdict, and the summing up was fair and did not prejudice the appellant.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Appeal procedure
• Jury directions
• Malice aforethought
• Motive

Read case analysis

Regis D Brutus v Republic (SCA 12 of 1985)

Regis D Brutus v Republic (SCA 12 of 1985) [1986] SCCA 3 (5 September 1986)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 12 of 1985

The Court of Appeal dismissed a murder appeal, holding that the jury was properly directed and that the evidence supported malice aforethought.

• Murder
• Malice aforethought
• Accident
• Manslaughter
• Jury directions
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis