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/
R v Brioche (CO 46 of 2016)  SCSC 903 (17 November 2016);
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES
Criminal Side: C046/2016
 SCSC 903
Heard: 4th November 2016 and 11 November 2016 (submissions)
Counsel: Mr. Hemanth Kumar, Assistant Principal State Counsel for the Republic
Mr. Joel Camille Attorney at Law for the accused
Delivered: 18 November 2016
 I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused in respect of his application for bail and the objections of learned counsel for the prosecution.
 The accused in this case has been charged with the following offences:
Possession with intent to traffick in a controlled drug namely Heroin having a net weight f 16.33 grams (purity 6.33 grams) contrary to section 9 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
016 read with section 7 (1).
Possession with intent to traffick a controlled drug net weight 43.0 grams of Cannabis contrary to section 9 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2016 read with section 7 (1).
Uttering threats to the NDEA (National Drug Enforcement Agency) agents Contrary to ection 16 of the NDEA Act.
 Learned counsel for the defence relied mainly on the following grounds in the application or bail;
a. That the accused is charged with two counts of possession of controlled drug.
b. That even in serious cases, stringent conditions could be imposed to ensure the attendance of the accused.
 Firstly Counts 1 and 2 are in respect of possession with intent to traffick and not a charge mere possession of a controlled drug only. Count 1 attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of SR 750,000 while Count 2 attracts a maximum sentence of 50 ars imprisonment and a fine of SR 500,000. In the event of there being aggravating circumstance an indicative minimum sentence of 20 years and 15 years respectively is r commended under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Act 5 of 2016. This in itself indicates the seriousness of the offences with which the accused has been charged.
 I also note that the prosecution in this case has gone to the extent of filing an affidavit t the accused is presently on bail in The Republic v Roy Brioche and Ors Cr. SC 20/2012. A copy of the bail order has been annexed to the said affidavit.
 It is apparent on perusal of the said order that stringent conditions have already been il posed by the Seychelles Court of Appeal in Roy Brioche v The Republic SCA 20/2015 on the accused to ensure that there is strict supervision of the accused, to prevent absconding and committing offences of similar nature whilst on bail. However it is apparent that despite this fact, there are now new allegations against the accused of
similar nature, clearly indicating the accused has totally disregarded the stringent conditions and intentions of the bail order. There is also an allegation that he has already threatened the witnesses in this case that is the officers of the NDEA at the time of detection and arrest.
 Considering all the aforementioned circumstances namely the seriousness of the offence nd the possibility of the accused continuing to repeat such offences which would result in serious consequences to society and the public especially the younger generation, I proceed to decline the application for bail. It follows the need to consider bail conditions, stringent or otherwise does not arise. I make order the accused be remanded further into custody.
Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 18 November 2016
Judge of the Supreme Court