Fred Sanguignon & Ors v Rep (SCA 5 of 1984) [1985] SCCA 4 (30 April 1985)

Pa sc a I T:i. NLDt v. 'Jihe kepub Li.c .." .' . . ;, . 'I'he thi'eeappellants 1 }}:r.edsanguignon, <Jean and FascalTirant(hel.'eafteI~ were "e.~qh:~h~:r;.g'ed c onfrc.i. I'y·to .:Sectibi-r'131Yo!'\the .. - ':_"'.' .•. :, -:.-- __ v '-." < .. _.;_ .;." . ~-'-'~' ..-. . . 1;e~dic66e.. - .". ~,l. J.~~&e,dalld '.'·'!\~'~r,i-~·e~.e hod.r\'i,.harm c oner-e l'Y Vli.~h.ld!l~!'WtllJ,cU$eOf~,~~Hle contrary.to with the:":!; contr£i.ry< to~Section260of the Penal c ouv i.c t ed ofthe~~oifence8and sentenced Ve.ry 1)l'Lcflythe fac,ts ..v!erE1 ;a8fq110\"8: the exp;;c;i:'intef emaLe: school ":. - ., i't eacher'employed Youth;:;tH'vi(~e' wa~',dF~Y~~~hcJ!ne to Le s HeeY Hotel at. abo'-.i~.\'JO. O()p.m. on .rne .1L~,1983, when 1;)hegaye/a.~ lift to the three .- <'" Sh.e·proceeded r-eac hed Petit' Paris,:,the ,.appen~nts' asked,herto get,'(),ffG> .,\·Jllen'shcstopped, LLant s c';t;out"butinstead of going, El. I'i<:l. Y 1 they car. Oneoi' them produced E, kni.fe was f'or-cedii nt;o the rear seat aandw i.ch ed in the dir~cti0n of the Heet Hotel. 'rhey drove up the A2 turned the cur round. and drove back After the '~r., ut seme St&B0 the aomplainaDt unsucceGsfu~ly . EV0r:.·- and it ~i3S f.'-'.tnfleqUelll;ly cli sc ove.r-cd that she had been illtpre€natel' ,H;; a result of the sexual assault, and later her pr-egnancy was medically terminated. Beror-o us nr. Georges appe ar-ec 1'01' A1 and A2, and l1r. Boul. Le appear-ed forA?;. All the appellants were young, it 1 ",as aged 29, 1.2 aged 22 and 1.3 aged 20. Hr. Q.:orces submitted that the s ent enc e of e years for rape j~';Jc.,',ed.on ,:\1 and At:. was manifestly excessive. He, very_.fuirly--adlLitt;ed that there wer e <'t[!;[;!.·;:,.vnting fF;·. C- tors, but c:out<.;nded that the trial juuge h:::d failed to take suf'f Lc Lerrt account of the mitigating c i.rcumst anc e s , He claimed ~h6t the complainant was careless in giving n lift at "thf;"; t i me of. night to .thre e young men. He ·sug- gested that: -that act could have misled -!;!J.;;w into believillg that the c;oii.-p:u\inmJt wou.l d be co-operative .in a sexual act. complainant did not result in serious injuries. He also role, altho~lh he was the youngest membe~. It was A3 wno Has thJ'G'ctlinf, the complainant curin[!; ti18 journey in' the c ar- to p'r-everrt her struggling. It \.'35· ,A3 who s ad.c he I.•anted. to have intercourse with a white woman; It was he who:~GGk 't he bracelets from the c onp Lai nant , He 'submitj;ed tLat been A'i and A2 have no m:·ev:'_ons conv i.c td onu and they hhe:: on. Iy warrt ed a lift and the i,c:t of r'ap erar-o se suddenly; i~ ~as not premeditated. In any event: 1'..3 \·ms the leader U,iiC: the punishment inflicted sho u'l d have re- nad not taken that aspect irito He also c·oJ:..tended that tile judge \-Jus wr-ong in s ay'i.ng Ln effect tl:..;.·<:; a rape offence wouLd hav e a't t r-act ed a 10 sent enc e '..:ou.td have been 5 years .impr... Lsonmont • Nr.!·\opll& adopted l"ir. Geor-ge s ' ~3 ergl..lJlIeotsand 'sub- He particJlarly referred to the following statemen~ by . Jhe trial jU(lt~e: 1I;'l'i'wally the sentence in the normnL c i.r cumst anc es would be a term of 10 years." hr .·;oulle contended that the directed r. Lms eLf , \Je agree that judge had mis-> trial. the axpr-es s Lon ' used by the j1j'~Gt: was unr'o r-buna t e , However l' we believe that what the judc;e meant; was that he would have imposed a sentence nf '10 years Lmpr-Lsonmenb in this case, but that h~had parse ed a lighter sentence 5.n view of t he mi1<iga- ting cir'cums'cances urged by counsel. .. Mr.c·Boul16referrad . tose;ntences ofimpr.isonment imposed in. GeychelJ.esin' othe:f~r<i:p6e~lses,flnd.capar't·fpOI1l one pnf;le,iu':which.the s~ntence\' •..as..,10:years,the·,.other. casesattI:actecl"sent.en'::c;-· ceS.frOlil.?to 5 years •• \ie hLwe (:ul'efully considered the c Lr-c urns t anc e a in this cast:;. 'l'hi S was a multiple rape. ·The complainant wa.s beat.:.."'; up :and attacked both be£ore and. aTter :the rape. Three yO)jiii~men simultaneously threatened her and she ~Jas really in fear of her lifeo She infuct had a visible constl.'i(;·~>"dn'a:L'kon her t.nr-o at; c au aed by 1; oe attempt .to·. throttle ::.e1'. 'Ihis ';ias .a premeditated act as frorothe 'let the appellunts off. ant was i'ordbly' abd.ucted for the PU1'I;ose of sexual assault" . A knife wa s used to inti?f!id[;.te h er-, She '\~ns imprer:;nat'"u i'ii a result of' the multiple l'hpc whi.ch "t ' .: I I I ;'",' must have ';"'(;8(1 8. deeply traumatic axp ar-i once , 'She .was d oi ng a lY'u:.i turn by o f f e r i.ng a lift to tho appe Ll.arrt s , people wit ..ou~ any mishap before. persons c onvLc t ed of rape , s ometrh i ng ill the na t ur e oi: a uJiform se: t.ar.c i.ng policy s hovi ng the range of' sentences to be Lmpcs ed r oa- the serious and less serious rapes. In oux Vi'~YI there is at pr-ese rrt in'JL11'ficient material ~n Seychelles for su6h an exercise. Por-t.un ert e Ly there do Dot apr,,'3.l' to be many cases of this DV.tUc:'2 in the country an it is therefore difficult if not impossible . to extract "-,or:,0 semblance of a {!;eue:cal conaer.aus from the sentences '. Jiypo·God Ln such cases. However in this case, there were serious aggravating l"actors which 'de have already set out. I,ff! C1i:~reethat the sentence is severe • But it is by no means so severe ns .to call 1'0:;:' i::'lt:erference. Each case has ;:0 be decided respective roles played by A1 and A2 O~ t~eGDe hRed and A3 OD the c~her. Even if A3 had played n ~are major role, tha-: !,\iou1.d have 'b een ba. Lanc e d HCaili:.:d:: his age, which was 2 consideration taken into eccc~~t by the judgeg he d.isriliss the appeals of all the :'> ar!,elJ.antso j1 t/- ~ ·-ic...i,-W·;''' (~:-j:~' I'", > • "--1 Q C ••• • • •• "(!... hu st af a) •••••••••••• • oil "' ••••.••••••• Justice of-}ppeal •••• 00" '. ("/({d, f!.: ...•~.- ..•.•..~l.'II .-,', ---.••.. /:1 <;'Cu ._/ ~, ~•.• 0 •••• V:-.~·.l7:~..' •..•••••••••••.••••••••••• (Eric 180\-1) co '1'.."" ~.~<.1U 7.i aT' )