R v Rachidi (CO 08/2017) [2018] SCSC 8246 (29 August 2018)

. ( IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES CriminalSide: CO O§l 120 1'+ [201181 SCSC ·.:f19 THE REPUBLIC versus HARUNA RACHIDI Accused Heard: Counsel: Mr. Thatchertt, Assistant Principal State Counsel for the Republic Mr. N. Gabriel for the accused Delivered: 30 August 2018 RULING Vidot J [1] The Prosecution has sought to produce a Statement under Caution allegedly sworn by the Accused. Whilst not disputing that he made a confession to the Police, he disputes voluntariness of that statement. The grounds on which the objection is rooted are as follows; (a) The Accused did not understand the Creole language in which the interview was conducted; I • (b) The Accused was not informed of his right to Counsel; [2] In support of its argument that the Statement was properly obtained; that is in conformity with the Constitution and the Judges Rules, the Prosecution called the police officers, namely; Marlon Pointe who recorded the statement and Marie-Andre Aimable who witnessed the recording of the statement. [3] The Accused was the only person to depone on his behalf. The Accused nonetheless gave a dock statement and such statement carries little weight. [4] I further note that a breach of the Judges Rules does not necessarily have to be fatal to the case. The Court only needs to evaluate if the breach of such rule caused prejudice to the Accused. [5] It was held in Ibrahim v R r1994] AC 559, that no statement by an accused that no is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the Prosecution to have been a voluntary statement in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of an advantage or held out by a person in authority. This is in agreement with the principle provided in the Judges Rules of England which has applicability in Seychelles in that it is a fundamental condition of the admissibility in evidence against a person, equally of any oral answer gi ven by that person to a question put by a police officer and any statement made by that person, that shall have been voluntary, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him by fear of prejudice or hope of an advantage, exercised or held by a person in authority, or oppression. [6] I have considered the evidence of the Police officers and I am fully satisfied that the Accused Constitutional rights were made known to him. I am satisfied that he was informed of his right to Counsel and rejects the Accused statement that he had asked that either Ms. Aglae or Mr. Andre, Attoneys-at-Law should be contacted. In making such finding I bear in mind Article 18(3) of the Constitution that provides for rights and treatment of a person following arrest or detention. That includes the right to legal representation. [7] I also note that Accused never made any complaints at the first opportunity. When he first appeared before this Court he requested that by preference he would want the proceedings to be translated into French, yet he never at any time until now complained that despite his request for French translation, the Police denied him of the same. [8] The Accused complained that he did not understand the language in which the interview was conducted as he speaks French and has hardly any understanding of creole, the language of the interview. I have no doubts whatsoever that the Accused fully understands Creole and in fact on one occasion after court had risen I saw and heard the Accused communicating with police officers in creole. The Accused stated that he had asked the Officers to speak slow for him to better understand Creole. I am sure that if the officers were speaking fast, he would have alerted them to slow down to allow him to understand what was being communicated to him. I am convinced that if the Accused when being interviewed had indicated that he was not understanding the language, the officers would have searched for an interpreter, and in the least if he had asked for one and that was denied to him, he would not have signed the Statement. [9] I am satisfied from the evidence of Police Officers that the Accused's Constitutional Rights nor the Judges Rules were violated and breached. Therefore, this Court finds the Confession to have been correctly obtained and is therefore admitted. [10] Therefore, I find that the statement was made voluntarily thus why it is now admitted. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 30 August 2018 .~~" Judge of the Supreme Court 3