Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
B Vilbro
2014 INT 325
JUDGMENT
24 year-old Accused Charles Kenny Cedric Pottier ( hereinafter referred to
as Accused No.1) and his 22 year-old cousin Jacob Bradley Vilbro ( hereinafter
referred to as Accused No.2) are jointly charged under 3 counts of the
Dangerous Drugs Act (hereinafter referred to as DDA), as follow :
Accused No.1 resides at Govinden Lane, Floreal and his cousin Accused
No.2 resides at Blk J 26, Cite Mangalkhan, Floreal.
It is part of the Prosecutions case that the only reason why Accused No.2
was arrested was because he was at Accused No.1s residence and had stated
that he was ready to agree that he had committed the offence/s. At one stage,
PC Bhoobun stated that Accused No.2 had admitted possession of part of the
drugs - which he later conceded was a mistake on his part. No drugs were found
at Accused No.2s residence.
At Folio 12/533173, Accused No.2 denies all knowledge of the drugs and
money. He explained that Accused No.1 had oftentimes told him that he did not
want to go to jail again and after the ADSU drugs raid, he felt sorry for Accused
3
No.1 and that was why he/Accused No.2 stated that he was ready to take the
blame although he knew nothing about the drugs.
No defence witnesses were called and the case was closed for the
Defence.
Accused No.1
Accused No.2
After perusal of the evidence on record and for all the reasons given
below, which are to be read comprehensively, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against Accused
No.2 as regards Counts 1, 2 & 3.
The only reason why Accused No.2 was arrested was because he was at
Accused No.1s house at the time of the drugs raid.
The Court notes the similarity in the tenor of the replies made by Accused
No.1 as per PC Bhoobun and Accused No.2 [ as reproduced above] as regards
causing Accused No.2 to take the blame.
To his credit, Accused No.2 does not dispute having stated that he was
willing to take the blame on behalf of Accused No.1. Accused No.2 would have
had a reason to distort the truth in order to serve his own interests but not PC
Bhoobun. The Court considers PC Bhoobun as a witness of truth when he says
that it was Accused No.1 who asked the police to spare him and to cause
Accused No.2 to take the blame.
This reinforces Accused No.2s version that he felt sorry for Accused No.1
and torn by sympathy and in the confusion of the moment, he/Accused No.2
spontaneously agreed to take the blame at Accused No.1s behest, despite his
consistently-reiterated ignorance about the drugs found in Accused No.1s
wardrobe and Accused No.1s dealings in same.
Does the fact that someone agrees to take the blame at the
Accused No.2 has explained the reasons why he said that he would
shoulder the blame despite the fact that he knew nothing about the drugs.
Save for his unfortunate presence at Accused No.1s home that morning,
there is no evidence connecting Accused No.2 to the drugs found in Accused
No.1s wardrobe.
The Court notes that PC Bhoobun stated that Accused No.2 merely said
Mo daccord pou prend charge la- see pg 2 above and did not mention the end
of Accused No.2s answer as per his defence statement - see pg 3 above
tire Kenny ... This is however of no consequence as, from the sequence and
tenor of the answers, it is abundantly clear that Accused No.2 (naively) agreed to
take the rap following Accused No.1s entreaty to the police that he/Accused
No.2 be made to do so.
And it is the opinion of the Court that Accused No.2s words Mo daccord
pou prend charge la, tire Kenny taken in context cannot reasonably be
considered as an admission of possession of drugs, an admission of guilt or a
confession.
The Defence
It is trite law that whilst the burden of proof is always on the Prosecution,
when evidence capable of proving the case against the accused and of
disproving his defence is adduced by the Prosecution, there is a kind of tactical
burden which is borne by the Accused in the sense that if he does not adduce
evidence in rebuttal he may well find the case proved against him: in other
words, the evidential burden shifts to the Accused - Andoo v R [1989 MR
241]
Stricto sensu and taken in abstracto Accused No.2s verbal statement
given on the spot that he was willing to accept the charge could be construed
by others as an admission of guilt.
7
However, Accused No.2 has testified under oath in respect of his defence
in a quietly, convincing manner and the Court was most impressed with his
candour and straightforwardness.
Explanations have been given as to how and why Accused No.2 said he
would take the blame for something he knew nothing about and for all the
reasons given above, the Court has no reason to disbelieve him when he says
he had no knowledge of the drugs in Accused No.1s wardrobe.
Conclusions
For all the reasons set forth above,
On his plea of guilty, Accused No.1/Charles Kenny Cedric Pottier is
found guilty as charged under Counts 1, 2 & 3.
As regards Accused No.2/Jacob Bradley Vilbro and as the Prosecution
has failed to prove the charges against him beyond all reasonable doubt, the
Court dismisses Counts 1, 2 & 3 against him.
Dated this 27th day of November 2014.
N.Ramsoondar,
Ag.Vice President, Intermediate Court (Criminal Division)