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
CR 53 of 2015

R v Lagrenade & Ors (CR 53 of 2015) [2017] SCSC 141 (16 January 2017);

Media neutral citation
[2017] SCSC 141
Mckee, J


Criminal Side: CR53 /2015    

[2017] SCSC 141










Heard:                              17th January 2017

Counsel:                           Mr. Ananth Subramanian for the Republic

                                       Mrs. Alexia Amesbury for the 1st Accused

                                       Mr. Nichol Gabriel for the other 4 Accused Persons

Delivered:                        17th January 2017




McKee J

  1. This is the ruling on the voire dire, as to rule that the statement has been voluntarily given or not.  There is a conflict of evidence in this matter.  Mr. Marie states that he explained the full rights to the first Accused, this included the right to have a lawyer present.
  2. It was Mr. Marie’s evidence that the first Accused did not ask for a lawyer and wanted to proceed to give statement.  The First Accused elected to give sworn evidence on the voire dire.  His evidence was he had asked for a lawyer to be present at the interview. 
  3. The one person who could throw some light on this matter was a witness inspector Danny.  I have listened to her evidence in chief very carefully.  It was her evidence that she did not recall if the first Accused asked for a lawyer.  This type of evidence is of no real value to the Court.
  4. I am left with two conflicting versions of the matter and in a voire dire proceedings the burden still rest with the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.  In the light of the evidence before me I find that the prosecution has not satisfied this burden accordingly I rule that the statement is inadmissible.



Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 17th January 2017




C McKee

Judge of the Supreme Court