Court of Appeal maintains life sentence ruling |27 April 2023

The Court of Appeal in session yesterday

Gives ruling in three criminal cases during first session in 2023

The Court of Appeal gave its ruling in three criminal cases yesterday, starting by maintaining life sentences against two men – Ken Wess Jean-Charles and Sindu Cliff Parekh – sentenced for life in prison for the murder of Berney Appassamy in September 2021.

In its 75-page report, the Court of Appeal led by its president, Justice Anthony Fernando, and comprising Justice Mathilda Twomey-Woods, Justice Fiona Robinson, Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza and Justice Samia Andre, dismissed the convicts’ appeal.

The two were accused of the murder of 37-year-old Berney Appasamy of Roche Caiman, at an abandoned property at Bougainville, Mahé on September 11, 2021.

According to the charges, Jean-Charles, 42, was counselled and procured by a businessman residing in Eden Island, Sindu Parekh, 46, to murder Appasamy.

Olivier Chang-Leng, counsel for Jean-Charles, had raised his appeal on the grounds that throughout the trial, the Appellant was implicated as a perpetrator of past unlawful killings, which was being heard before the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) and the reports were being aired on national television, making the trial “immensely prejudicial and affected his right to a fair and objective trial by the Jury”.

He also claimed the judge’s summing up was biased and one-sided and the judge failed to properly direct the jury on the dangers of relying on the testimony of a former co-accused namely, Terry Marie who had turned state witness, as well as the inconsistencies of his evidence.

Basil Hoareau, counsel for Parekh, had appealed on seven grounds, among which his client was not given sufficient information about the nature of the offences, his trial by Jury was contrary to article 125 and 19 of the Constitution in that the Appellant was tried by Jury instead of by a judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. He also appealed on the ground his client was not provided with a reasoned judgment or with the reasons for his conviction. Counsel Hoareau had also claimed the verdict of the jury was unsafe and the decision was unreasonable and cannot be supported by evidence.

Both men had denied their involvement in the murder. In yesterday’s ruling, the Court of Appeal said it referred to the relevant evidence that has a bearing in determining the guilt of the two men, under rule 31(1) and (3) of the Seychelles Court of Appeals Rules, which provides that “appeals to the Court shall be by way of re-hearing and that the court may draw inferences of fact”.

Justice Fernando stated that under the Constitution of Seychelles, Parekh was not compelled to testify at trial nor could any adverse inference be drawn from the exercise of the right to silence, “but where there was incriminating evidence against him, which he alone could have explained, and his failure to come up with an explanation at the trial, in my view, will undoubtedly have a bearing in determining his guilt”.

He also told the court that in his first statement to the police, Parekh had said he did not have anything to say in reference to the case and did not know Appasamy, but in his second statement had admitted that his girlfriend had spoken about the deceased to him in early September. The court also referred to the various phone calls prior to the killing and hours after the killing between the two convicts and Marie, who turned state witness.

Justice Fernando said evidence showed the deceased was killed by Jean-Charles who had no apparent motive to kill him, after having been lured to Bougainville and the state witness, Terry Marie had witnessed the incident. The only person who was searching for the deceased was Parekh and he was the one “who got the ball rolling”, leading to Appasamy’s murder.

Parekh’s counsel, Basil Hoareau, told the local media that he will speak to his client and will pursue other options that exist “and if need be, we will go to the Constitutional Court”.

In the second case, Vincent Samson, represented by counsel Basil Hoareau, was appealing against conviction for offences of aggravating trafficking of a person and trafficking of a person.

The court ordered that the appeal was partly allowed by quashing the conviction and sentence imposed on count 1 and acquitting the Appellant of the charge levelled against him on count 1. Count 1 had to do with conviction for the offence of aggravated trafficking of a person. In its appeal, counsel stated count 1 of the Indictment has been wrongly drafted as there is no separate offence as Aggravated Trafficking in the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2014. In this instance the 15 years imposed on the Appellant was quashed

However, the 10-year sentence imposed against the Appellant on count 2, which is trafficking of a person, was maintained. Meaning his appeal on count 2 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The offence is that Vincent Samson recruited, transported or transferred Marlon Anthony Bertin from Seychelles to Iran or Pakistan, to be used as guarantee for drugs.

In his summing up Judge Fernando said he “hoped this does not ever happen in this country, where a Seychellois is given as a guarantor to Iranians for drugs”.

The third appeal was brought by the Soopramanien brothers, Fabio and Dario and Gerard Bastienne. This was against their sentence for importation of controlled drugs, heroin and cannabis resin. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal partially allowed appeals of the three appellants.

The 20-year sentence against all three men on count 1 was maintained.

The 30-year sentence against all three on count 3 was quashed, and they were instead given a 25-year sentence.

Sentences of 20 years imprisonment imposed on Fabio, for count 4 and the sentence of 18 years on Dario on the same count, was quashed and they were instead given a 15-year sentence. The 15-year sentence on Bastienne on the same count was maintained.

All three men will serve a total period of 25 years imprisonment as sentences in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 will run concurrently.

Their appeals were against conspiracy to import a controlled drug namely heroin and cannabis and their sentences for trafficking of a person. They were convicted for recruiting, transporting and transferring Andy Bistoquet from Seychelles to an Iranian dhow at sea to be taken to Iran for the purpose of exploitation as a drug guarantee by way of abduction and deception.

Meanwhile all fines imposed and the default sentences ordered in the event of non-payment of fines were quashed.

Patsy Canaya/Diane Larame