SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES
Reportable
CO30/2022
In the matter between:
THE REPUBLIC
and
LEEROY PIERRE 1st Accused
SHARIF ROBERT 2nd Accused
MAJID AMBLAVANE 3rd Accused
Neutral Citation: The Republic v Leeroy Pierre & Ors (CO30/2022) (11 November 2024)
Before: D. Esparon J
Summary: Sentence
Heard: 03 October 2024
Delivered: 11 November 2024
SENTENCE
Esparon J
The accused is sentenced for the offence threatening with injury or harm with intent to cause alarm to one-year imprisonment which is suspended for a period of 2 years and to a fine of 10,000 Seychelles rupees of which the accused should pay the said fine within a period of 6 months from the date of this sentence. In default of the payment of the said fine, the accused shall serve a period of 6 months’ imprisonment.
Introduction
The 2nd accused Shariff Robert has been charged in count 3 with the offence of threatening violence contrary to section 89(a) of the Penal Code (cap 158) read with section 22(a) of the Penal Code and punishable under section 89 of the same Act. The Particulars of the offence reads as follows;
‘Shariff Robert 25 years old construction officer of Au Cap, Mahe and Majid Amblavane 26 years old mechanic of Roche Caiman, Mahe on the 10th of July, at Buckingham Palace casino located at Au cap, threatens the security officers namely Simon PUSAM and Ugbaje AJODOH with injury or harm by throwing rocks and gravel with intent to cause alarm to the said Simon PUSAM and Ugbaje AJODOH.
The Accused has pleaded guilty to count 3 as charged and was convicted on his own guilty plea after admitting the facts of the prosecution case.
Mitigation by counsel for the 2nd accused
Counsel for the 2nd accused put forth as mitigation before this Court that the accused has pleaded guilty saving the precious time and resources of the Court. According to counsel the offence of which the accused has been convicted is a misdemeanor and that the court in the present case should consider a non-custodial sentence and a fine. That the only act which the accused did was throwing some rocks and gravels with intent and that here were no accompanying words. Counsel for the 2nd accused submitted that as such there are no aggravating circumstances. Furthermore, according to counsel, the fact that he has taken his responsibility, has shown remorse before the Court.
Analysis and determination
From the outset, this court would like to expound on the principle of sentencing as laid down in decided cases. In the case of Ponoo V/S Attorney General (2011) SLR, the Court of Appeal held that;
“sentencing is an intrinsic judicial power which involves the human deliberation of the appropriate conviction to be given to the particular offender in the circumstances of the case. It is not a mere administration of a common formula standard or remedy”.
In the case of Savy v/s R (1976) SLR 54, the Court held that;
“In sentencing, the Court should consider the necessity of punishing crime, the deterrent effect on others of the appropriate punishment, and the need to protect the public from offences especially at the hands of those entrusted with the enforcement of the law, the previous good character of the accused, the motive for the offence and the loss of usefulness to the state by a prison sentence’’.
In the case of R V/S Aden (2011) SLR 41, the Court held that;
“In sentencing, one relevant factor is the seriousness of the offence and when determining a sentence, the court should take into account previous sentences in similar cases. However, the Court should be aware of the differences between cases”.
The case of Njue v R (2016) SCCA 12, (at para 14) set out the principles a court should consider when sentencing which includes public interest; the nature of the offence and the circumstances it was committed. The Court at the same time must consider whether there is a possibility of the offender to be reformed; the gravity of the offence; the prevalence of the offence; the damage caused; any mitigating factors; the age and previous records of the accused; the period spent in custody; and the accused’s cooperation with law enforcement.
In the present matter, this Court has considered the following mitigating factors in favor of the accused. That the accused has pleaded guilty showing remorse before the Court. This Court has also considered that the offence of which the accused has been charged is a misdemeanor which is punishable with a maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. I also take into account that according to the facts of the prosecution case, the 2nd accused threatened the said 2 security officers with injury or harm by throwing rocks and gravel with intent to cause alarm to the said security officers and also caused a commotion at the said premises of which the said 2 security officers were guarding.
I have therefore considered all the mitigating factors as referred to above as well as that the offence had been committed at a licensable entertainment establishment whereby a large amount of people used to come to this place and thereby placing such clients and security officers at risk. Hence, I find this fact to be serious. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Court should impose a sentence that serves as a deterrent to committing such offences on such premises.
In view of the above, this Court is of the view that a non- custodial sentence is most appropriate in the circumstances of the present matter. As a result, I accordingly sentence the accused to one-year imprisonment which is suspended for a period of 2 years. In addition, I impose a fine of 10,000 Seychelles rupees of which the accused should pay the said fine within a period of 6 months from the date of the sentence. In default of the payment of the said fine, the accused shall serve a period of 6 months’ imprisonment.
The accused has a right of appeal within 30 days from the date of this sentence.
Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 11th November 2024.
……………………….
D. Esparon J.