R v Copfert (CO 33/2013) [2015] SCSC 52 (1 March 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Criminal Side: CO 33/2013 [2015] SCSC 052 THE REPUBLIC versus DIRK EDGAR COPFERT Accused Heard: Counsel: Mrs. Lansinglu, Assistant State Counsel for the Republic Mr. Juliette for the accused Delivered: 2 March 2015 SENTENCE Dodin J [1] The Convict was convicted on his own guilty pleas to: Count 1 Uttering false documents knowingly and fraudulently contrary to Section 339 of the Penal Code. Count 2 Stealing contrary to Section 260 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 264 of the Penal Code. Count 4 Possession of false documents contrary to Section 345 read with Section 23 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 345 of the Penal Code. Count 5 Possession of false documents contrary to Section 345 read with Section 23 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 345 of the Penal Code. Count 6 Possession of false documents contrary to Section 345 read with Section 23 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 345 of the Penal Code. Count 7 Possession of false documents contrary to Section 345 read with Section 23 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 345 of the Penal Code. Count 8 Possession of false documents contrary to Section 345 read with Section 23 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 345 of the Penal Code. Count 9 Possession of false documents contrary to Section 345 read with Section 23 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 345 of the Penal Code. [2] The facts reveal that the Convict is a first offender and he is 42 years old. He has pleaded guilty and saved the Court’s time and expenses. [3] I also note that with regards to Count 1 and 2 the money in question has been recovered and therefore there is no loss as stated by counsel for the Convict. [4] Learned Counsel also maintained that the Convict is remorseful and moved the court for leniency. I have considered the mitigating factors put forth in favour of the Convict. Having so considered, I impose the following sentence regarding each count:- - - - For the 1st Count which I note as I stated before that there has been no loss caused as a result to the Complainant I impose a sentence of 3 years imprisonment. For the 2nd Count which is a count of stealing of which is the same subject matter of Count 1, I impose a sentence of 2 years imprisonment to run concurrently For Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which were documents found at the Convict’s place and which carry only a maximum sentence of 7 years each, I impose a sentence of 1 year imprisonment each. All sentences to run concurrently; that means the Convict will serve a maximum of 3 years. [5] Any time spent on remand shall be deducted from the sentence. I also order that after serving his sentence he is removed from the jurisdiction and that the money recovered which belongs to Cash Plus be returned to the Complainant. [6] He can appeal against the sentence within 30 working days. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 2 March 2015 G Dodin Judge of the Supreme Court 3