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/

Court name
Supreme Court
Case number
CO 75 of 2017
Counsel for plantiff
Mr. Kumar

R v Julienne (CO 75 of 2017) [2019] SCSC 770 (21 February 2019);

Media neutral citation
[2019] SCSC 770
Counsel for defendant
Mr. N. Gabriel
Coram
Vidot, J

JUDGMENT

Vidot J

  1. The Accused was charged with and pleaded guilty to the following offences;
  2. Following his conviction. Counsel for the Accused invited Court to call for a probation report before passing sentence. The Accused is a first time offender. The probation reveals that the Accused is unemployed since the last 3 years. He is suffering from lower back pain which require regular physiotherapy sessions. Before that he had been in steady full time employment. He is cohabiting with and taking care of his mother who is asthmatic. The Accused stated that he was drug dependant, but when interviewed by Probation Officer who compiled the report, he stated that he committed the offences because he needed cash. I he Social Services recommended a noncustodial sentence and the imposition of a fine and drug rehabilitation programme.
  3. Counsel for Accused further mitigated on his behalf. He submitted that the Accused who is 45 years old is a father of a 15 year old child. He has pleaded guilty thereby saving the court’s precious time and has also shown remorse. He added that his client co-operated with police when apprehended and assisted with investigation. He reiterated the medical condition of the Accused and produced a medical report which confirmed that the Accused suffers from spondylosis, thus the back problem.
  4. I have given due consideration of submission made in mitigation by Counsel for the Accused. In particular, I take into account that the Accused pleaded guilty and thereby saved the previous time of the court and thereby showing remorse for his action. I also considered that the Accused is a father and of his medical conditions.
  5. 1 have also considered that in meting out sentence, the Court has to bear in mind that classic principle of sentencing is deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation, reformation and retribution; see Lawrence v Republic [1990JSLR 47. I have furthermore taken into account the principle of proportionality and totality of sentence.
  6. I note in particular the amount of drugs involved and the medical condition of the Accused. 1 also note that he was trafficking the drugs not due to his alleged dependency on the same but the fact that he needed cash. I take into account the magnitude of drug epidemic prevailing in Seychelles and that there is urgent need to prevent trafficking in the same.
  7. I find that in the circumstances a custodial will be appropriate. Therefore, 1 sentence the Accused as follows;

Count 1; 5 years imprisonment

Count 2; 3 months imprisonment

Both sentences shall run concurrently and the Accused shall be entitled to remission on the sentences.

  1. I further make an Order that the Accused is placed on drug rehabilitation programme.
  2. The Accused may of Appeal against this sentence within 30 days from today

Signed, dated and delivered at He du Port on 19 July 2018

Judge of the Supreme Court