R v Sauzier & Anor (CO 58/2018) [2020] SCSC 466 (12 March 2020)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable [2020] SCSC I 8'f CO 58/2018 Republic First Convict Second Convict In the matter between: THE REPUBLIC (rep. by Ananth Subramaniam) and EVERLONNE (rep. by Nichol Gabriel) SAUZIER SELWYN ELVIS (rep Clifford Andre) Before: Heard: Delivered: Burhan J 06th February 2020 13 March 2020 SENTENCE BURHANJ [1] The first convict Everlonne Sauzier was convicted of the following charges on her own plea of guilt. Count 2 Possession of a controlled drug contrary to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2016 and punishable under the second Schedule of the said Act. The particulars of the offence indicate that the controlled drug was Cannabis Resin having a net weight of29.3 grams. Count 4 Possession of a controlled drug contrary to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2016 and punishable under the second Schedule of the said Act. The particulars of the offence indicate that the controlled drug was 31.8 grams of Heroin with a purity content of 15.5 grams. [2] The second convict Selwyn Esparon has already been convicted on his own plea and sentenced. [3] At the request of Learned Counsel for the defence a probation report was called. The probation report indicates that the convict is 26 years old. The convict has been employed as general helper, house keeper at numerous hotels and as a receptionist at the Agency for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Rehabilitation (APDAR). It appears she is currently unemployed but does some housekeeping chores such as ironing for a lady at Anse Aux Pins. [4] It is also apparent from the probation report and the facts of the case that the convict had brought this quantity of controlled drug to the Supreme Court complex to pass sit on to an inmate in prison or a prison officer. She states she had done so as she was under pressure from certain inmates from the prison, as they had threatened to harm her children and as she needed the money as she was unemployed and had no money. Admittedly she is a drug user. [5] The probation officer has also reported that the issue of drug smuggling at the prison is a concern and efforts are being made to tackle transactions between civilians and inmates especially at the Court premises which has become a point of transfer of such controlled drugs. [6] In mitigation, learned Counsel Mr. Gabriel submitted that the convict was a victim of circumstances and that it was her boyfriend in prison that was behind the transaction. She is the mother of three children. She was under a methadone program and a former employee of APDAR. She had been compelled to commit the offence due to the threats, blackmail, pressure and her relationship with a prison inmate. He moved that court treat her leniently. [7] I have considered the facts contained in the plea in mitigation. The convict is a first offender and admittedly a drug user. She has pleaded guilty at the first instance thereby expressing remorse and regret. However there are many aggravating factors in this case. The quantity of Class A drug heroin involved is large 31.8 grams (purity 15.5 grms). She had in her possession not one controlled drug but two, the other being a Class B controlled drug Cannabis Resin 29.3 grams. This is definitely not a situation of a drug user having a small quantity in her possession for her personnel use where they should be sent for rehabilitation and not incarcerated as envisaged by section 38 (2) of MODA 2016. The offence is further aggravated by the fact that the transaction of passing the drugs to the prison inmate was to be done in the Supreme Court premises. It appears from the submission of her own Counsel that the threats she refers to were emanating from her own boyfriend who was a prison inmate. Having considered the background facts peculiar to this case, I proceed to sentence the first convict Everlonne Sauzier, to a term of one year imprisonment on Count 2 and a term three years imprisonment on Count 4. Considering the financial circumstances of the convict, I will not, in addition, impose a fine. Both terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. [8] Time spent in remand to count towards sentence. As the convict has pleaded guilty at the first instance she is entitled to remission. Signed, dated and delivered at lIe du Port on 13 March 2020. o vo v M Burhan J 3