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/
R v Hoareau (CO 74 of 2018)  SCSC 695 (12 August 2019);
Sentencing. Drug offence.
The convict Robin Hoareau was convicted of the following offences on his own plea of guilt.
Trafficking in quantity of 82.12 grams (pure 48.24 grams) of Heroin.
Possession of a quantity 1.49 grams of Heroin
Trafficking in a quantity of 49.18 grams of Cannabis Resin.
Possession of a quantity of 16.3 grams of Cannabis.
 At the request of Learned Counsel for the convict, a probation report was called and thereafter Learned Counsel made a plea in mitigation on his behalf. I have considered the facts contained in the probation report and the plea in mitigation made by Learned Counsel.
 The convict according to the report is 41 years of age. He has a 6 year old son. The accused was earlier employed as cleaner, boat boy and worked in a cleaning business. It appears from the probation report he is a drug user as well and the drugs were for his personal consumption. Learned Counsel pleaded in mitigation for leniency in imposing a sentence on the convict.
 On the facts before Court, I am satisfied that the convict has expressed remorse and regret at the incident by pleading guilty at the very outset of the case, thereby expecting leniency from Court. He is a first offender and expresses his intention to reform himself by obtaining specialised help.
 I have considered all the aforementioned factors in mitigation together with the serious nature of the offence and the fact that the charge is in respect of a trafficking of a Class A controlled drug and the pure quantity 48.24 grams of Heroin.. The recommended sentence is from 5 to 8 years for a quantity of 10 to 50 grams. I am of the view a custodial term of imprisonment must be given as the convict is not a first offender. I proceed to sentence the convict giving due consideration to his immediate plea of guilty as mentioned to him during the plea and directions hearing and the fact that he is a drug user who has expressed his intention to reform himself.
1) On Count 1 to a term of 4 years imprisonment and a fine of SCR 25,000/- (twenty Five thousand rupees). In default of payment of the fine of SR 25, 000/-, the convict is to serve a term of 6 months imprisonment which would be consecutive to the term of 4 years imprisonment imposed in this case.
2) On Count 2 to a term of 12 months imprisonment.
3) On Count 3 to a term of 6 months imprisonment
4) On Count 4 to a term of 3 months imprisonment.
 I make further order that the terms of imprisonment imposed in Count 1 four years and Count 2 twelve months, Count 3 six months and Count 4 3 months run concurrently. Time spent in remand to count towards sentence. The convict is entitled to remission as he has pleaded guilty, at the discretion of the Superintendent of Prisons.
 This Court makes further order that the sentence in this case be consecutive to the sentence of 2 years imposed in case number SCSC CO 10/2019.
Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 13 August 2019.
M Burhan J