R v Mondon & Ors (CO 44/2017) [2018] SCSC 724 (25 July 2018);

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES

Criminal Side: CO. 44/2017

 

[2018] SCSC 724

 

THE REPUBLIC

versus

1. STEPHAN MONDON

2. GUY HALL

3. PHILIP MAZORCCHI

4. MARCUS LOUYS

5. CHELSIE MONDON
Accused

 

Heard:                         25th July 2018

Counsel:                      Mr. Thachett for the Republic

                                    Mr. Andre for 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th Accused

                                    Mr. Camille for the 2nd Accused

Delivered:                   25th July 2018

 

RULING

Govinden J.

 

1.         Mr. Andre is seeking to produce a witness statement previously given by the witness            Peter Hein outside Court as a witness, in order to contradict him on alleged            inconsistencies.

2.         Mr. Camille, Counsel for the 2nd Accused, moves that the statement be edited to the       extent that it implicates and prejudices his client.

3.         Mr. Thachett, Counsel for the Republic, objects to this procedure and says that this      statement is not a Statement under Caution, it is not being sought to be produced for the truth of its content as a Statement under Caution and its implication that it would have    against other co-accused, who would be prejudiced as a result of original evidence          coming into the Court record.

4.         Mr. Camille in reply, submitted that there is an overriding discretion on the part of the   Court based on the case of R vs Sang that any evidence which its prejudicial effect   outweighs its probative value should be excluded from evidence by the Court.

5.         Having heard Counsel's submissions, I am of the view that any evidence that prejudices       the minds of the Court against an Accused and of which its prejudicial effect outweigh its      probative value has to be excluded. The statement here is being produced simply to     contradict the witness evidence in Court from the statement that he has given as a         witness. It is not being sought to taint or prejudiced the mind of the Court against any accused party in this case, of which, for the time being the Court's mind should be open until evidence comes to implicate them.

6.         Therefore, the rest of the part of the statement that implicates the co-accused should not       be admissible as it would have an effect on the mind of the Court. I will allow this        statement to go in as a statement to contradict the witness's evidence (to the extent that it         contradicts Mr. Hein's evidence) but it has to be edited and any part that implicates any          other co-accused, which is the second Accused has, to be removed.

 

Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on ________day of ____________ 2018.

R. Govinden
Judge of the Supreme Court