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 3 of 2017
Counsel for plantiff
G. Thachett

R v Dodin & Anor (CO 3 of 2017) [2018] SCSC 120 (18 March 2018);

Media neutral citation
[2018] SCSC 120
Counsel for defendant
B. Julie
A. Madeleine
Vidot, J


Criminal Side:  CO 03/2017

[2018] SCSC     




First Accused


Second Accused


Counsel:                    Mr. G. Thatchett, Assistant Principal State Counsel for the Republic

                                 Mr.B. Julie for the first accused

                                 Ms. A. Madeleine for the second Accused

Delivered:                   19 March 2018


Vidot, J

[1]        The Accused were charged with and convicted of one count as follows;

Statement of Offence

Robbery with violence contrary to Section 280 of the Penal Code (Cap158) read with Section 23 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 281 thereof.

Particulars of Offence

Davis Dodin 35 years male unemployed of Glacis, Mahe, together with Nelson Marcelin, 32 years old casual labourer of Bougainville, Mahe, with common intention at around 21:50 hours of the 26th day of January 2017, at Union Vale, Mahe, robbed one Viral Dhanjee of SR1200/-, bottles of wine and rose sorbet squash worth SR800/-and at or immediately before the commission of such robbery, used and threatened violence against the said Viral Dhanjee, by threatening him with a knife.

[2]        In assessing the appropriate sentence to impose on the Accused I have given due and full consideration to submission of mitigation by Counsels for the Accused. I have also given due consideration to the Probation Report in respect of the both Accused. Probation report was requested in regards to the 2nd Accused, but the Court received reports for both. Counsels for the Accused had prayed Court to show leniency on their clients. Both Accused have 2 young children each.  They are both in relationships. In mitigation Counsel for the 1st Accused submitted that his client is remorseful about the incident whilst I note that in the report he denies any involvement in the criminal act. I note that despite the second Accused being a 1st time offender he was an active participant in the crime and was continually urging the first Accused to harm the victim, Mr. Dhanjee. The first Accused is not a first time offender. He was convicted in Criminal case CR636/14 before Magistrate Court B. He was released from prison on 20th November 2016 I bear in mind that the Accused were armed with a knife when they committed the crime.

[3]        This Court has to be responsive to the outcry by the public who are urging for action to ensure their safety and security. 

[4]        It is the duty of this Court to ensure that such audacious criminal behaviour does not take root as part of our culture. It cannot and should not. As a society we cannot condone such behaviour.  More and more people are concerned not only for the safety of their property but that of their person and their family. We cannot have a society where people are scared in their own homes. A man’s home should be a sanctuary of safety and love. We cannot continue to have situations where citizens are forced to go to bed armed with machetes, clubs and other weapons next to their beds as ammunition towards their safety and that of their families.

[5]        I 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 [1990]SLR 47. I also bear in mind the principle of proportionality of sentence.

[6]        Therefore I proceed to sentence the Accused as follows;  

i.          The first Accused is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment

ii.         The second Accused is sentenced to 14 years imprisonment

[7]        Time spent on remand shall be discounted from the sentence.

[8]        The Accused may appeal against the judgment and sentence, if dissatisfied with the same, within 30 days from today


Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 19 March 2018


M Vidot

Judge of the Supreme Court