IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES

Criminal Side: CR53 /2015    

[2017] SCSC 141

THE REPUBLIC

versus

NEDDY LAGRENADE & ORS

Heard:                              17^th January 2017

Counsel:                           Mr. Ananth Subramanian for the Republic

                                       Mrs. Alexia Amesbury for the 1^st Accused

                                       Mr. Nichol Gabriel for the other 4 Accused Persons

Delivered:                        17^th January 2017

McKee J

1. This is the ruling on the voire dire, as to rule that the statement has been voluntarily given or not.  There is a conflict of evidence in this matter.  Mr. Marie states that he explained the full rights to the first Accused, this included the right to have a lawyer present.
2. It was Mr. Marie’s evidence that the first Accused did not ask for a lawyer and wanted to proceed to give statement.  The First Accused elected to give sworn evidence on the voire dire.  His evidence was he had asked for a lawyer to be present at the interview. 
3. The one person who could throw some light on this matter was a witness inspector Danny.  I have listened to her evidence in chief very carefully.  It was her evidence that she did not recall if the first Accused asked for a lawyer.  This type of evidence is of no real value to the Court.
4. I am left with two conflicting versions of the matter and in a voire dire proceedings the burden still rest with the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.  In the light of the evidence before me I find that the prosecution has not satisfied this burden accordingly I rule that the statement is inadmissible.

Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 17^th January 2017