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 44 of 2014
Counsel for plantiff
Mr. Kumar

R v Bacco & Ano. (CO 44 of 2014) [2015] SCSC 166 (29 May 2015);

Media neutral citation
[2015] SCSC 166
Counsel for defendant
Mr. Camille for the first accused
Mr. Juliette for the second accused
Dodin, J

Criminal Side: CO 44/2014

[2015] SCSC 166




First Accused

Second Accused

Counsel: Mr. Kumar, Assistant State Counsel for the Republic
Mr. Camille for the first accused

Mr. Juliette for the second accused

Delivered: 29th May 2015


Dodin J

[1] Learned Counsel for the 1st Accused moved the Court to release the 1st Accused on bail with conditions on the grounds that the drugs in question is a Class B Drug and that trial in this case has been set for September 2015.
[2] Learned Counsel submitted that there are precedents where persons charged with more serious offences which included Class A Drugs, have been released on bail with conditions and applied for the same to be considered in this case particularly since trial is set for next term.
[3] Learned Counsel for the 2nd Accused adopted the submissions of 1st Accused and submitted further that the Court of Appeal has released persons charged with several kilograms and hence the amount of drugs should not be a major issue.
[4] Learned Counsel for the Republic objected to the application for bail maintaining that there has been no change in circumstances since the last bail application was dismissed in October 2014.
[5] Learned Counsel submitted that the Affidavit of Agent Lester Solin established a strong prima facie case against the Accused persons. He submitted that the recent Court of Appeal decisions do not apply in this case as the Court of Appeal only released the accused persons after they had spent 2½ years in prison without their trial being completed. He moved the Court to dismiss the application accordingly.
[6] I have considered the submissions of all Learned Counsels and revisited the ruling of this Court delivered on 24th October 2014.
[7] I do not consider the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Roy Brioche and Others vs Republic to have established a principle that the Court of Appeal can interfere at any time in the management of a criminal case by the trial Judge or to have established a principle that the trial Court should not take into account the amount or type of drugs involved in determining whether to grant bail in a given case.
[8] The only issue in the above case which is relevant to this case is the length of detention without completion of trial. I am satisfied that in the present case trial will take place within a reasonable time although after 13 months of detention.
[9] Consequently, I find that there is no reason for this Court to change its decision regarding bail for the 2nd Accused person in this case. However should trial not proceed as scheduled for reasons not attributable to the accused persons or their counsels, this issue shall be revisited accordingly.
[10] At this stage, the application for bail is declined.

Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 29 May 2015


G Dodin
Judge of the Supreme Court