RIDDLE OF JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY IN
This is the case of two individuals. One from la Digue and the other from Pointe Larue.
Mr Perrin Payet is a resident of La Digue. He has been charged with possession of 9 grams of heroine which raises the presumption of trafficking.
Mr Rancy Larue has been charged with the offence of possession of 3.8 grams of heroine, which also raises the presumption of trafficking.
Both accused were denied bail on the ground of seriousness of the offence before Supreme Court Judge Gaswaga. However, on 27th April, both accused were produced before the Supreme Court presided over by Judge Perera for the purpose of extending the remand.
Mr Payet was released on bail subject to stringent conditions, one of which was a cash bond of SR 150,000.
Mr Larue on the other hand was denied bail.
Challenged on the inconsistent approach in regards to the two accused, Judge Perera said, “in the case of Mr Payet the prosecution did not object to bail being granted. However, in Mr Larue’s case the prosecution has objected.” The law gives the presiding judge the absolute discretion to grant bail. Larue had 3.8 grams of heroine whilst Payet had 9 grams. Which one is more qualified for bail? Answer on a postcard please.
Hint: Go to La Digue and find out who Perrin Payet is related to.