The Republic v Savy & Ano ([2018] SCSC 398) [2018] SCSC 398 (09 April 2018);

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES

Civil Side: CO29/2017

 

       [2018] SCSC 398

 

 

THE REPUBLIC

 

Versus

 

    

  1. MARCUS BENNY SAVY
  2. AARON FREMINOT

 

 

Heard:       09th April 2018

 

Counsel:    Mrs. Romei Langsinglu for the Republic

 

                Mr. Nichol Gabriel for both Accused

                                       

                                                   RULLING

 

R.Govinden,J

Delivered:  09th April 2018

 

  1. This is the ruling of the Court, the defence object to the admissibility of a statement under caution purportedly taken from the 2nd accused, Aaron Freminot, on the 23rd of June 2017.  Mr. Gabriel objection is based on alleged involuntariness of this statement, he says that whilst the statement was being taken, the accused was informed by Corporal Sheila Arnephy and the witness to the statement under caution, ASP Leon, that others have implicated him in the commission of the offence and that he better tell the truth.
  2. Mr. Gabriel also objects on the ground that the accused was not informed of his right to Counsel.  The Prosecution bears the burden of proof in this trial within a trial.  Prosecution bears the burden to prove beyond unreasonable doubt that the statement taken from 2nd accused Aaron Freminot was voluntarily given beyond unreasonable doubt, in the sense that it was not taken from the accused against his Will and that he was not induced or threatened before, during or after he gave that statement under caution.  And that all his Constitutional rights were observed including informing him of his rights under Article 18 (2) of the Constitution.
  3. In this trial within a trial the Prosecution called two witnesses to prove to the Court that the statement was taken voluntarily.  Corporal Sheila Arnephy testified that Mr. Aaron Freminot was not induced in any form or way whatsoever and that he was informed his rights, including his rights to Counsel under Article 18 (2) of the Constitution.  And that he was not induced, threatened, intimidated in any forms whatsoever.  This evidence is corroborated by the 2nd witness in the voire dire ASP Leon who was the witnessing officer.  I find these witnesses to be believable, truthful and credible and I accept their evidence as such.
  4. It is the evidence of the two witnesses that no inducement was given to Mr. Aaron Freminot in the form as it is suggested by the defence attorney.  Having carefully listened to the witnesses evidence adduced by the Prosecution in the light of submissions of Counsels, in this voire dire I am of the opinion that the Prosecution has proved beyond unreasonable doubt that the statement taken from 2nd accused by Corporal Sheila Arnephy on the 23rd of June 2017 and witnessed by ASP Leon is voluntary beyond a unreasonable doubt.  Though the 2nd accused was brought to Court on a remand application on the 23rd of June 2017 in the afternoon, this had no impact or implications on the voluntariness of this statement under caution as the two procedures were done hours apart.
  5. So I rule that this statement is admissible and can be led by the Prosecution.

 

 

Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 9th April 2018

 

 

R.Govinden

Judge of the Supreme Court