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
CS 28 of 2017
Counsel for plantiff
A. Benoiton

Ex-parte: Belle (represented By Mr Gilbert Eliza) (CS 28 of 2017) [2018] SCSC 157 (19 February 2018);

Media neutral citation
[2018] SCSC 157
Counsel for defendant
B. Hoareau
Govinden, J


Criminal Side: CO 27/2015

[2018] SCSC 157




First Accused


Second Accused

Heard:                         19 February 2018

Counsel:                      Mr. George Thachett,  for the Republic

                                    Mr. Daniel Cesar Attorney at Law for the First Accused

                                    Mr. Nichol Gabriel Attorney at Law for the Second Accused

Delivered:                   20th February 2018


Burhan J

[1]       The 1st convict Godfrey Albert has been found guilty and convicted on the alternative Counts 2 and 3 which read as follows:

Count 2

Aiding and Abetting in Housebreaking contrary to and punishable under Section 289 (a) read with Section 22(c) of the Penal Code (CAP 158).

Count 3

Stealing from dwelling house contrary to and punishable under Section 264 (b) read with Section 23 of the Penal Code (CAP 158).

[2]       Count 2 and 3 are felonies and each attract a maximum term of 10 years imprisonment.

[3]       I have considered the plea in mitigation on behalf of the 1st convict Godfrey Albert. He is a first offender. Learned counsel on behalf of the 1st convict stated that his client had never been in trouble before, and was 37 years of age, is living in cohabitation and has a child. He further stated that the 1st convict had several loans.

[4]       However, I note that there are many aggravating circumstances in this case. The 1st convict was a trusted employee and according to the evidence before court, a well-liked employee. It is clear he had betrayed this trust placed upon him by his employer, by aiding and abetting a housebreaking of his employer’s premises. I therefore find the act of the 1st convict in aiding and abetting a house breaking in this instant case aggravating in nature. It is apparent that it was the assistance given from within, that encouraged and resulted in the housebreaking of the British High Commission, a premises under 24 hour guard. Further the items stolen were valuable jewellery valued at GBP 20,550.00 and cash SCR 1000 and GBP 100.  Only a necklace worth 1500 GBP was recovered by the police. However nothing was recovered as a result of the co-operation of either of the convicts.

[5]       Having considered the aggravating circumstances peculiar to this case and the aforementioned circumstances in mitigation, I proceed to sentence the 1st convict Godfrey Albert, to a term of  5  (five) years imprisonment on Count 2 and to a term of  3 (three) years imprisonment on Count 3. I make order that both terms of imprisonment run concurrently.

[6]       The 2nd convict Terry Pointe has been found guilty and convicted on Count 4 which reads as follows:

Count 4

Retaining other property knowing or having reason to believe that the same to have been feloniously stolen, taken, obtained contrary to and punishable under Section 309 (1) of the Penal Code (CAP 158).

[7]       The 2nd convict Terry Pointe was given an opportunity to mitigate as his counsel was not present. He stated he had nothing to say. The 2nd convict had several previous convictions which were read over to him in Open Court and which were accepted by him. The previous convictions admitted to by the 2nd convict were in respect of offences, including breaking into building, stealing from dwelling house and stealing from vehicle and attempted burglary. I also note the offence he is convicted of in this case Count 4 is a felony.

[8]       Having considered his antecedents, I proceed to sentence him to a term of 4 (four) years, imprisonment on Count 4. This term of 4 years imprisonment is to run consecutively to all other terms of imprisonment imposed on him up to date.


Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 20th February 2018


M Burhan

Judge of the Supreme Court