Welcome to the new SeyLII website. Enjoy an improved search engine and new collections. If you are used to accessing SeyLII via Google, note Google will take some time to re-index the site.
We are still busy migrating some of the old content. If you need anything in particular from the old website, it will be available for a while longer at https://old.seylii.org/
Vel v R (CN 4 of 2015)  SCSC 870 (10 November 2016);
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES
Criminal Side: CN 04/2015
Appeal from Magistrates Court decision 468/2014
(2016) SCSC 870
Heard: 7 November 2016
Counsel: Mr. Leslie Boniface Attorney at Law for appellant
Mr. Khalyaan Karunakaran, State Counsel for the Republic
Delivered: 11 November 2016
 The Appellant was charged in the Magistrates' Court with the following offence:
Housebreaking Contrary to Section 289(a) of the Penal Code
Particulars of offence are that Dereck Vel, 32 years old, residing at Les /vlamelles, Mahe on the 4'" day of July 201-1at, Perseverance, Mahe broke and entered into the dwelling house of Lucille Felix, with intent to commit afe/ony therein namely stealing.
Stealing from dwelling house Contrary to Section 260 and Punishable under Section 264 (b) of the Penal Code.
Particulars of offence are that, Dereck Vel, 32 years old, residing at Les Mamelles, Mahe on the 4111 day of July 2014 at, Perseverance, Mahe stole from the dwelling house of Lucille Felix, one white Ipad make Samsung Galaxy' and Rs.3001- in. One hundred rupee notes being the property of Rashield Felix.
 The Appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilt and sentenced to a term of 4 years imprisonment 011 Count 1 and to a term of 3 years imprisonment on Count 2. The learned Magistrate made further order that both terms run consecutively.
(3] It is apparent from his.order that the learned Magistrate had addressed his mind to the case of Jean Frederick Ponoo v The Attorney General SCA 3812010 and proceeded to impose terms of imprisonment less than the minimum mandatory terms provided for by law. Therefore it cannot be said the learned Magistrate was harsh and excessive.
 However, considering the fact that the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction, it would be appropriate that the terms of imprisonment imposed by the learned Magistrate, be made to run concurrently and not consecutively as held in the cases of Christopher Dorizo v The Republic SC CI'Appeal 15of 2008 and ROlldy Lenclume v Tile Republic Criminal Appeal SeA 3212013.
 This Court would therefore proceed to vary the order of the learned Magistrate and make order that the terms of 4 years imprisonment and 3 years imprisonment imposed on Counts 1 and 2 respectively fun concurrently and not consecutively. Therefore in total the Appellant would serve a term of 4 years imprisonment.
 A copy of this order to be served on the Superintendent of Prisons and his warrant of commitment adjusted accordingly.
Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 11th November 2016
Judge of the Supreme Court