October 20, 2006

IN COURT THIS WEEK

Supreme Court  Convicts Emmanuel & Freminot

The Supreme Court presided over by Justice Duncan Gaswaga has delivered judgment  in the case of The Republic v/s Cliff Emmanuel, Richard Freminot and Patrick Lime on the 18th October 2006. The three accused were originally charged with murder after Norah Antat, a 63 year old lady was found dead, tied and gagged, in her house at Pointe Larue. The Court convicted both Cliff Emmanuel and Richard Freminot of the offences of Manslaughter and Robbery with Violence. Patrick Lime, the third accused had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to undergo 8 years imprisonment after he made a plea bargain agreement with the Prosecution to testify against the two other accused. The trial was controversial in that it took three years to commence. The Supreme Court is expected to pass sentence on the two convicts today at 9.00am. The Court unusually took exceptions to a weekly article a few weeks ago which expressed concern about the amount of time the convicts had been on remand waiting for their trial and the length of the delay in the case. The Court remarked that the matter was sud judice and the newspaper is not a proper forum to raise these concerns. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the case had to be postponed on at least two occasions for judgment and the convicts were becoming weary. Although the trial ended on the 31st March 2006, judgment was only delivered on the 18th October 2006 some 7 months after trial had ended. The Constitution provides that a person who is charged with an offence must be tried within a reasonable time. However, the Court said that the convicts were the cause of their own demise as they have refused to be tried by three previous judges and had raised several motions and objections and had thus protracted the case. The Court also commented that no less than ten lawyers had put up appearances on behalf of the convicts and they were either fired or asked the Court for leave to withdraw as their clients made legal representation difficult. During the trial the defence lawyers also vigorously cross- examined the prosecution’s witnesses and some cross-examination took three days to conclude. This, the judge remarked, had protracted the trial and caused unreasonable delay. Richard Freminot has absconded and is still at large. The lawyers representing the convicts have stated that they expect their clients to get the same or similar sentence as Patrick Lime.   In the judgment the Court disregarded the evidence of one the prosecution witnesses since his testimony was inconsistent and ambiguous. However, the Court was of the view that this did not affect the prosecution’s case and concluded that the prosecution has proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Although the Court accepted defence Counsel’s argument that the charge had been badly drafted and was thus bad for duplicity, the Court said that this was a mere technical argument and it did not affect or prejudice the two convicts’ case. The defence lawyers have also stated that they intend to appeal against both the conviction and sentence on behalf of their clients. However, the Court of Appeal is yet to sit and it is not known when the next session of the Court of Appeal will take place. President Michel has already appointed a Mauritian judge to sit on the Court of Appeal to resolve the issue of quorum which had made it unable to sit thus. It is hoped that things will be back to normal soon and litigants can have their cases dealt with imminently.

Copyright 2006: Seychelles Weekly, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles