R v Bastienne (CR 54 of 2017) [2024] SCSC 191 (1 August 2024)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable eR54/2017 Republic Defendant [2024J sese (PI August 2024) ln the matter between: THE REPUBLIC (rep. by Corrine Rose) and JEAN PAUL BASTIENNE (rep. by Clifford Andre) Neutral Citation: The Republic V Bastienne (CR54/2017) Before: Summary: Govinden CJ Sentence; House breaking with intent to commit a felony - Act intended to cause grievous harm - Assault to cause actual bodily harm - Kidnapping with intent to do harm. ISf August 2024 Delivered: ORDER Count ( - 4 years' imprisonment; Count 2 -: 6 months' imprisonment; Count 3 - 18 months' imprisonment; Count 4 - l-year imprisonment. Sentences imposed in this case to run concurrently with that imposed under Count l , If dissatisfied the convict has 30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal against tbis sentence. SENTENCE GOVINDENCJ [I] The accused was found guilty and convicted of the charges brought against him. which included four counts. The counsel for the convict requested the production of a probation (pre-sentencing) report on behalf of his client. The aforementioned document was duly made available to counsel and the Court. I have listened to the counsel's arguments in mitigation. The convict is 39 years of age and is the father of two children. The mother of the children is also a victim in this case. The convict is working with IDC on Deroches island. Counsel prays that the Court exercises leniency in sentencing the convict. [2J The convict is a first time offender. He has expressed that he felt terrible and sad about what happened and that he has lost his family as a result of his actions. Moreover. the son of the convict described him as a good person and that his father made a mistake. [3] In terms of the victims in this case. it is evident that they have been significantly impacted by the incident. As per the probation report. one victim was hospitalised and underwent surgery, while the other, the wife. ended her marriage with the convict. Both parties indicated that the court should base its decision on the merits of the case. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, probation services have recommended that the court impose a sentence deemed appropriate for the convict. (4) After careful consideration of the case and the impact of the offences on the victims, who have sustained significant injuries, including an implant and trauma, as well as the mitigating factors, it is evident that the offences are grave in nature. The gravity of the case is reflected in the maximum penalties for each charge. The maximum penalty for Count 1. House breaking with intent to commit a felony contrary to Section 289 of the Penal Code read with Section 236 of the Penal Code and Count 3, Assault to cause actual bodily harm contrary to Section 236 is seven years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty for Count 2, Act intended to cause grievous harm contrary to Section 219(a) of the Penal Code is life imprisonment and that of Count 4, Abduction of a person in order that such person may be subjected to grievous harm or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected contrary to Section 245 of the Penal Code is fourteen years' imprisonment [5] The prescribed penalties indicate that the offences of which the convict has been convicted are felonies, thus very serious criminal acts. In light of the aforementioned considerations. it is my intention to impose sentences that are both appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. (6) In the case ofH. Savv and Ors vs Republic SLR 1976, the Court cited the English case of Kenneth ball, 35 Criminal Appeal R 164 as follows: "In deciding the appropriate sentence a Court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced. not only with the object of punishing crime but also, in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence passed in public serves the public in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence, may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again or induce him to tum from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. Not only in regard to each criminal. the Court has the right and duty to decide whether to be lenient or severe". [7} In the case of The Republic v Joshua Aubrey TeJemaque (CR83/20 19) Vidot J made reference to Lawrence v Republic [1990] SLR 47 when stating that: ..... in meeting out sentence, Courts have to bear in mind that the classic principle of sentencing is deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation, reformation and retribution; see Lawrence v Republic [1990] SLR 47 ... :' [8] I have conducted a thorough examination of the gravity of the charges in this case, taking into account the severity of the offences and the facts of the case. Furthermore, I have considered the submissions in mitigation presented by the learned defence counsel. as well as the content and recommendations set forth by the probation services in the respective report. In light of the aforementioned considerations, I have reached the following conclusion and proceed to impose a custodial sentence on the convict Jean Paul Bastienne as follows; [9] Count 1 - 4 years' imprisonment; [10] Count 2 - 6 months' imprisonment; [II] Count 3 - 18 months' imprisonment: [12] Count 4 - I-year imprisonment. [13] Sentences imposed in this case to run concurrently with that imposed under Count I. [14] If dissatisfied the convict has 30 days to make an appeal against this sentence. Signed, dated and delivered at lie du Port on the lSI August 2024. Govinden CJ 4