Firearms and prevention of terrorism case:   |14 January 2023

Leslie Benoiton denied bail

Third accused in the firearms and prevention of terrorism case, Leslie Benoiton, was yesterday denied bail by the Supreme Court.

Mr Benoiton, who filed the application through counsel Basil Hoareau late last year, has been in detention since November 21, 2021 after a large cache of weapons and ammunition were discovered at the home of first and second accused Mukesh and Laura Valabhji, which also led to weapons being found at his workplace. 

During the bail hearing on December 30, 2022, Mr Hoareau moved that Mr Benoiton should be granted bail either conditionally or unconditionally, in the absence of a set trial date, through no fault of his own. The trial was initially set for December 1, but has since been postponed upon the request of the Valabhji couple while they sort out other legal matters, relating to access to seized fund through which to pay off their legal fees.

Through his extensive submissions, Mr Hoareau further pointed out that Mr Benoiton’s right to be tried within a reasonable time could potentially be violated, as it was probable that he will remain in detention for at least two years before the trial commences. He thus called on court to ascertain whether the period of detention is reasonable.

In delivering the ruling, Chief Justice Rony Govinden concluded that due to the highly complex nature of the case, the fact that Mr Benoiton has been in detention for only just over one year since arrest, coupled with the existence of risks of absconding, committing further serious offence or interfering with the court, the balance is titled in favour of the prosecution, the Republic in this matter.

He noted that in making the determination, court considered several decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and stated that it is not possible to state the precise length of time which is considered to be reasonable. Consideration of numerous factors including the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the defendant and that of the prosecution is necessary in order to determine whether the period of detention is reasonable.

Contrary to the position in Europe, the seriousness of the offence in the Seychelles jurisdiction is not a ground for justification for pre-trial detention, and court needs to consider this factor along with other factors specified in Article 18(7) of the Constitution.

CJ Govinden also reiterated that the court has previously ruled that there are sufficient factors to justify detention, and that it also took into account where the balance of convenience lies.

In deciding whether one year in detention is unreasonable, court took into account the complexity of the case, number of defendants, the need to execute letters of request abroad, high number of witnesses, and behaviour of both the accused person and the prosecution. In this respect, it found that Mr Benoiton has not acted adversely affecting the setting of the trial date, and that there was no period of inactivity on prosecution’s part as it was ready and willing for trial fixed in December 2022.

As such, Mr Benoiton remains in remand custody along with the Valabhji couple up until January 27 when they are due back in court.

Laura Pillay