R v Brioche (C046/2016) [2016] SCSC 903 (18 November 2016);

IN THE SUPREME  COURT OF SEYCHELLES
Criminal  Side:  C046/2016

[2016] SCSC 903

 


THE REPUBLIC


versus

 

ROY BRlOCHE
 


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


ORDER

 

Burhan J

 

[1] 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.

[2] The accused  in this case has been charged  with the following  offences:

Count 1

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).

Count 2


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).

Count 3


 Uttering threats to the NDEA (National Drug Enforcement Agency) agents Contrary to ection 16 of the NDEA Act.

[3]        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.

[4]    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.

[5]    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.


[6]      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.

[7]        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

M Burhan
Judge of the Supreme Court