no, this is not for an essay. It concerns a high profile criminal case in Seychelles.
A boat was intercepted at sea with a large volume cannabis on board in December 2012. Initially there were 7 accused (all on board the vessel) including the captain. 2 other suspects (including the boat owner who was not on board) who were not on board were arrested on January 28th 2013 and charged on February 25th 2013. It appears that the investigation continued after the charge (conspiracy charge notably). No request for further investigation was made to the Court. The skipper was released in July 2013 under a conditional agreement signed with the Attorney General (crown witness). Other remained in detention. New statements were taken from other "witnesses" (as from March 2013). Those statements were given to the defense in July 2013 when the captain was released. The trial commenced in October 2014 and is still ongoing.
That is what we need
yes they have been disclosed after several months.
Hi Alex, sorry it took me a while to answer but I needed to check with the lawyer and it seems that I should clarify my question further.
1. Investigation in a criminal case starts.
Allegations are put to the accused.
The accuse responds by giving a statement to the allegations.
The investigation continues and thereafter the accused is charged and appears before the Court.
2. But prosecution/police continues with the investigation after the charge. The new evidence is not put to the accused. Statements of the new evidence obtained after the charge are given to the accused.
a) Is it proper for the prosecution/police to continue with the investigation after the person has been charged for the offence and after the accused appears before the Court? More so as the same were never put to the accused for rebuttal/explanation
b) Is such evidence admissible in law? And if so please provide which authority (statue or case law) will support the same.
If the new evidence brought after the charge is not put to the accused, then the accused might be “forced” to give evidence in Court under ought to respond and rebut to the new evidence. In that case does it not offend the right to the accused of remaining silent?