R v Allisop (CO 96/2015) [2017] SCSC 952 (2 November 2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Criminal Side: CO 96/2015 (2017] SCSC \ OJ_. S" THE REPUBLIC versus CLIV A ALLISOP Accused Heard: Counsel: 30 October 2017 Mr. Khalyaan Karunakaran, Senior State Counsel for the Republic Mr. Clifford Andre Attorney at Law for the accused Delivered: 3 November 2017 SENTENCE -------- Burhan J [1] The convict was found guilty after trial on both the l " Count of Robbery with violence contrary to section 281 of the Penal Code and on the 2nd Count of having committed an Act intended to cause grievous harm contrary to section 219 (a) of the Penal Code. [2] Prior to sentencing the convict, I will proceed to consider the plea in mitigation made on behalf of the convict by learned Counsel for the defence and the facts contained in the probation report. [3] In mitigation, I observe learned Counsel has relied on the facts mentioned in the probation report that the convict has not had an easy childhood. He has brought it to the attention of Court that the convict has been in custody for two years and that this fact be taken into consideration when the sentence is being passed. [4] I have also considered the. facts in the probation report. The convict is 42 years of age. It is apparent that the convict had become a victim to substance abuse. The probation has recommended a custodial term of imprisonment. [5J Having considered the facts before me, I note that the medical evidence in the case indicates that the complainant on admission to hospital after being hit on the head with a piece of wood by the convict had been kept under observation for a head injury of serious nature. He had fortunately recovered on his own without any invasive surgery being done on him. [6] Both offences for which the convict has been convicted. attract a maximum term of life imprisonment, indicating the seriousness of the offence for which the accused has been charged. I also observe that in terms of section 27 of the Penal Code, even though the convict is a 1st offender in respect of Count 1, he faces a minimum mandatory term of 15 years imprisonment. Having considered the facts peculiar to this case, I am of the view that a minimum mandatory term of 15 years imprisonment would be harsh and excessive. [7] Having considered all the facts before Court especially the fact he is considered to be a first offender as he has 110 previous convictions of a similar nature and the background circumstances of the convict set out in the probation report and the reasoning contained ill the case of Ponoo " Attorney General SeA 38/2010 in regard to the sentence being appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed, I am of the view a term of 5 years imprisonment on each Count, would be ajust and appropriate term of imprisonment which would be proportional to the nature of the offences committed. 1therefore proceed to sentence the convict on Count 1 to a term of 5 years imprisonment and on Count 2 to a term of 5 years imprisonment. I make order that both sentences run concurrently. [8] I make further order that the time spent in remand count towards sentence. delivered at lie du Port on 3 November 2017 / Judge of the Supreme Court 3