R v Lagrenade & Ors (CR53 /2015)  SCSC 141 (17 January 2017);
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES
Criminal Side: CR53 /2015
 SCSC 141
NEDDY LAGRENADE & ORS
Mrs. Alexia Amesbury for the 1st Accused
Mr. Nichol Gabriel for the other 4 Accused Persons
Delivered: 17th January 2017
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Judge of the Supreme Court