Three walk free as Court of Appeal quashes drug-related convictions |19 December 2020

Three persons have once again been granted their freedom, after the Court of Appeal yesterday quashed the convictions and sentences against them, for drug-related charges.

Couple Tony Vidot and Keisha Maria set free based on inconsistencies in evidence

Tony Vidot and Keisha Maria, a couple who were in July 2019 convicted to five years and two years imprisonment respectively for the offence of trafficking in drugs, have been set free after being acquitted by the Court of Appeal yesterday.

Mr Vidot and Mrs Maria, were convicted by the Supreme Court after having been found in unlawful joint possession of heroin having a net weight of 62.3 grammes with an average purity of 35.5 grammes on or about October 5, 2018, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2016.

Despite having expressed concern about the welfare of their children and the 6-month-old baby which they share, on account that they would be incarcerated and were previously contributing towards their children’s welfare and upkeep, Justice Mathilda Twomey in the original trial stated that neither convicts “have expressed any remorse or shown any contrition in terms of the offences they have committed. Therefore, while it is necessary to exercise clemency, it is imperative at the same time to deter others from embarking on this futile journey”.

However, the Court of Appeal in quashing the convictions of the pair considered numerous factors, including the fact that there were some inconsistencies surrounding the evidence on which the two were convicted. The main evidence against the Vidot was that of a witness who had seen him handling the drugs on a date the prosecution had failed to establish, and the finding of his thumb impression on a shopping bag in which the drugs were concealed. With regards the second appellant Maria, the only evidence was the finding of her DNA profile in a condom that was found along with the drugs.

“The evidence in this case shows that the first and second appellants were at the police station when the seized drugs were shown to the first appellant (Vidot). There was no evidence led by the prosecution to show that proper procedures had been adopted to avoid contamination at this stage.”

“It must be noted that DNA analysis involves complicated scientific analysis and experiments and like any other laboratory experiments, the analysis is always open to mistakes or human errors due to many circumstances. Therefore, DNA evidence must be approached with great caution and subjected to much scrutiny before it can be made admissible in court. In other words, he has to explain all the details as to how the results tabulated in the report were obtained. Apart from that, the DNA expert is also required to explain on how he managed to get the random match probability including the method of calculation used by him. Failure to satisfy on the above requirements would cause the DNA evidence to have no evidential value. An examination of the evidence of PW 8, S Sohun, the Senior Forensic Scientist employed by the Mauritius Forensic Science Laboratory, shows that there is no detailed explanation of how he obtained the matching DNA characteristics. In fact, his evidence had been to the effect that he had not done two of the processes in the DNA analysis and that they were done by other members of the staff,” stated President of the Court of Appeal Anthony Fernando in allowing the appeal on three of four grounds relied upon by the convicts.

Harry Dupres’ appeal succeeds on all grounds

Harry Dupres’ appeal against the conviction for conspiracy to import heroin and the sentence of 10 years imposed on him was successful before the Court, on all grounds of appeal.

Dupres was convicted on the basis of the evidence of an accomplice for conspiracy to import heroin into Seychelles on or around April 20, 2018. Along with two others, E. J. Dijoux and Roy Bailey, they were charged under the same indictment for importation of drugs into Seychelles. As set out in the judgment of the learned Trial Judge E. J. Dijoux, a Malagasy national, pleaded guilty to the offence of importation of the drug whereas R. Bailey accepted a conditional offer made by the Attorney General under section 61A of the Criminal Procedure Code to turn state witness with regard to the case involving Dupres, in return for the charges against him with respect to the incident being withdrawn, leading to Dupres being charged and sentenced.

Dupres pushed five grounds of appeal including that the learned trial judge erred both in law and of the facts of the case, in that the evidence did not support proof beyond reasonable doubt of an agreement between the Appellant and accomplice-turn-state witness Roy Bailey, and in having relied on his evidence in support of the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, Dupres appealed against the sentence imposed, on the basis that is manifestly harsh and excessive.

In quashing the conviction, court said it was a surprise that both Dijoux and a third involved party had not been called to provide evidence in the matter and that it is fairly clear that Dupres was being used as a scapegoat, with President Anthony Fernando stating that there were many errors committed by the trial judge in the defence case and that the conviction of the Dupres is therefore unsafe.

Laura Pillay